- 23 -
Accordingly, we base our ruling herein solely on the
materials exchanged by the parties during the administrative
process. Since those materials do not establish implementation
of proposed changes, our conclusions as to petitioner’s status
will turn on application of the tests under section 509(a)(3) to
petitioner’s original articles of incorporation and bylaws.
As a second preliminary matter, we make several observations
regarding burden of proof. Pursuant to Rule 217(c), the burden
of proof rests upon petitioner as to grounds set forth in the
notice of determination and upon respondent as to any ground not
stated in the notice. Respondent raised the responsiveness test
as a new issue by means of an affirmative pleading in the answer.
The parties here agree that respondent bears the burden as to the
responsiveness test and that petitioner bears the burden as to
the attentiveness subtest and the control test. They disagree as
to who bears the burden with respect to the but-for subtest.
However, because our disposition on this point does not depend on
application of the burden of proof, we need not further address
the dispute.
III. Responsiveness Test
As previously mentioned, petitioner claims to be an
organization “operated in connection with” a supported
organization, AEF, for purposes of the relationship requirement
prescribed in section 509(a)(3)(B). See sec. 1.509(a)-4(f)(2),
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011