The Nationalist Foundation, A Mississippi Non-Profit Corporation - Page 13




                                               - 13 -                                                  

            not been shown for submission of evidence in addition to the                               
            administrative record, and, therefore, the motion was denied.                              
            What is contained in the administrative record, in terms of                                
            petitioner’s factual foundation, is wholly unpersuasive.                                   
                  Using as a source an IRS publication, “Cumulative List of                            
            Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue                          
            Code of 1986", revised to September 30, 1989, petitioner points                            
            out that there are many listed organizations whose names begin                             
            with words of apparent ethnic, racial, or sexual partiality, such                          
            as “Black”, “Hispanic”, “Jewish”, and “Gay”.  An important                                 
            disparity, according to petitioner, is the conspicuous absence of                          
            “White” organizations.                                                                     
                  This issue has already been addressed by this Court in                               
            Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 594-596, in                              
            which we held that there was no evidence of a constitutional                               
            violation.  Petitioner’s arguments are identical to those of the                           
            taxpayer in Nationalist Movement.  Therefore, there is no reason                           
            to change the analysis or the result reached in that opinion.                              
                  For the reasons stated, we conclude that petitioner is not                           
            operated as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  We have considered                          












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011