IHC Health Plans, Inc. - Page 43




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011