- 30 -
the second prong set out above.3 Before setting forth the
reasons for our conclusion, it is necessary to describe
petitioner’s argument in more detail.
Petitioner summarizes its position on the but-for subtest as
follows:
Petitioner is providing the only support the
American Endowment Foundation receives for the support
of activities in Northville, Michigan. “But for”
Petitioner’s support, those activities would not exist,
and would not be funded unless the American Endowment
Foundation found funding elsewhere. * * *
Petitioner also states that AEF “is dependent upon Petitioner for
its grants to perform the functions of the public charities in
the Northville, Michigan area.” Thus, petitioner views the
pertinent activities narrowly, i.e., in terms of support of the
Northville, Michigan, region, and not broadly, i.e., in terms of
AEF’s mission to assist the community of U.S. inhabitants.
We reject petitioner’s argument on the ground that it is
based upon a faulty factual premise; namely, that petitioner’s
support to AEF is dedicated to activities in Northville,
Michigan, or southeastern Michigan. This premise is based upon
the fact that petitioner intends to recommend to AEF that
petitioner’s contributions to the donor-advised fund be used to
3 As previously indicated, our conclusions with respect to
the but-for subtest do not turn on who bears the burden of proof.
In contrast to our analysis of the responsiveness test, we here
do not rely on a failure of proof by either party but rather
apply the regulatory standard to the facts as evidenced by the
administrative record.
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