- 43 -
setting premiums for large employer group enrollees based upon
past claims experience. If the difference in treatment of the
enrollees caused a disparity in premium costs between the classes
of enrollees, there could be an inference that petitioner was
benefiting larger employers. However, the record contains no
explanation of the difference in treatment of enrollees.
In conjunction with the premium disparity issue, we note
that, unlike the arrangement adopted by Sound Health Association,
petitioner’s bylaws stated that its board of trustees would be
composed of a plurality of representatives from the buyer-
employer community, with an approximately equal number of
physicians and hospital representatives. The composition of
petitioner’s board of trustees, lacking in representation of the
community at large, furthers the inference that petitioner
predominantly served the private interests of the larger
employers participating in its plans. In the absence of an
explanation in the record, the Court is left with doubt as to
petitioner’s provision of a community benefit. Petitioner has
the burden of proof. See Rule 217(c)(2)(A); Geisinger Health
Plan v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 406.
In sum, we hold that petitioner has not established that it
provided a community benefit that qualifies it for tax-exempt
status pursuant to section 501(c)(3). Put another way, it has
failed to show that it provides any community benefit that
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011