- 22 -
personal gain or benefit?”, to which Ms. Fennell replied: “No, I
have not purchased any real estate for personal gain. All the
real estate involved in the questions surrounding Rameses School
was purchased for the intent of the school. It was purchased for
the intent of classrooms, playgrounds, gyms, things like this,
for Rameses School.”
Thus, given the lack of probative value in the evidence
offered by petitioner at trial, whether or not petitioner is
permitted to relitigate factual issues addressed by the SBOE is
of little practical moment. The documentary record and the SBOE
decision speak with a consistent voice, and petitioner has put
forward nothing convincing to the contrary.
IV. Analysis--Revocation of Exempt Status
Petitioner’s exempt status was revoked on account of failure
to satisfy the operational test, which failure in turn was based
on private benefit and inurement. Accordingly, the critical
inquiry in this case is whether the facts support a determination
of private benefit. As set forth in detail supra, much caselaw
has revolved around questions of private benefit as between an
entity and its founder. Factors highlighted as indicative of a
prohibited relationship have included control by the founder over
the entity’s funds, assets, and disbursements; use of entity
moneys for personal expenses; payment of salary or rent to the
founder without any accompanying evidence or analysis of the
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007