- 5 -
relieves a church from having to meet the requirements of section
501(c)(3). In fact, it is clear that when the Commissioner
determines that an organization is not entitled to an exemption
as a church, as is the case for IBT, its contributors must prove
the church’s right to an exemption under section 501(c)(3) in
order to be entitled to a deduction for their contributions.4
See Riemers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-456; Hall v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-576, affd. 676 F.2d 692 (4th Cir.
1982); Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-553; sec.
1.508-1(a)(3), (4), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner’s position is based on the assertion that IBT was
not required to meet the requirements of sections 170(c)(2) and
501(c)(3), and he did not introduce any evidence at trial to
establish that IBT was an organization defined in those sections.
Having failed to carry his burden of proving that IBT qualifies
as a religious organization under section 170(c)(2), petitioner
is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for his
donations to IBT. Cf. Hall v. Commissioner, supra.
4 Cf. sec. 7428(c), which validates up to $1,000 per
contributor where the donee has instituted proceedings under sec.
7428 to contest the revocation of the donee’s status. There is
nothing in the record to suggest that this provision has any
application in the present case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011