- 35 -
petitioner. Finally, we disagree with petitioner's
suggestion that attentiveness is demonstrated by the fact
that petitioner is required by section 6104(d) to make
available for inspection by any individual its annual tax
return and certain other information, such as investment
return and a listing of all investments. In this case,
there is no evidence that Keswick exercised actual
attentiveness to petitioner's operations.
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm
respondent's determination that petitioner fails to
satisfy the attentiveness prong of the integral part test
of section 1.509(a)-4(i)(3), Income Tax Regs., and that
petitioner does not qualify to be excepted from private
foundation status under section 509(a)(3).
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Last modified: May 25, 2011