- 27 -
and disposing of property; receiving and administering property
by gift, devise, or bequest; and entering into contracts.
Furthermore, although petitioner currently has few assets
requiring active management, respondent has not shown that
principal payments on the note or additional annual
contributions, etc., estimated by petitioner will not occur to
render the management role increasingly material. Certain of
respondent’s statements also seem to conflate influence with
control to a degree unsupported by the regulations and caselaw.
Moreover, as pertains to the timing, manner, and recipients
of grants, petitioner indicated during the administrative process
that the AEF director would serve on the advisory committee of
the donor-advised fund and would thereby have a significant voice
in recommending grants. Again, respondent has introduced nothing
proving to the contrary. We further are mindful that AEF
exercises final authority over distributions from the donor-
advised fund. Hence, we cannot find that AEF lacks the necessary
ability to influence petitioner’s activities in these matters.
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner’s governance and affairs
are structured to satisfy the responsiveness test of section
1.509(a)-4(i)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011