Alamo Found. v. Commissioner

1992 T.C. Memo. 155, 63 T.C.M. 2422, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1992
DocketDocket No. 39921-85X.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1992 T.C. Memo. 155 (Alamo Found. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alamo Found. v. Commissioner, 1992 T.C. Memo. 155, 63 T.C.M. 2422, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160 (tax 1992).

Opinion

TONY AND SUSAN ALAMO FOUNDATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Alamo Found. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 39921-85X.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1992-155; 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160; 63 T.C.M. (CCH) 2422; T.C.M. (RIA) 92155;
March 18, 1992, Filed

*160 An appropriate decision will be entered.

Kenneth R. Mourton and Neal Ross Pendergraft, for petitioner.
Michael W. Bentley and Daniel C. Brauweiler, for respondent.
DAWSON, NAMEROFF

DAWSON

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Larry L. Nameroff pursuant to section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183. 1 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge: In 1984, after examining the records and activities of the Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation (A Non-Profit Corporation) for the years 1977 through 1980, respondent retroactively revoked petitioner's tax exempt status for years beginning after December 31, 1976. Having exhausted its administrative remedies, *161 petitioner brought this action for declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7428 seeking a reversal of respondent's action. Pursuant to Rule 217(a), 2 petitioner requested a trial in this case, in addition to submission of the administrative record, which we granted. The issues presented are whether petitioner is operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or other exempt purposes and whether any part of petitioner's net earnings inures to the benefit of private individuals.

FINDINGS OF FACT

At the time the petition was filed herein, petitioner's principal place of business was located in Alma, Arkansas.

Petitioner was incorporated under the laws of the State of California on January 29, 1969. The*162 articles of incorporation therein provided that petitioner was organized under section 501(c)(3), generally, to establish, conduct, and maintain an Evangelistic Church, to carry on and to conduct schools for the study of the Holy Bible, to secure the Americanization of the foreign born, and to care for the needy. The incorporating directors were listed as Tony Alamo (Tony), 3 Susan Alamo (Susan), and Phyllis Gromousky (n.k.a. Cathy Wylie), with a listed address of 1932-1/2 Cahuenga, Hollywood, California.

On May 1, 1974, petitioner filed a Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption under section 501(c)(3), with respondent's District Director in Los Angeles. Therein, petitioner stated that its financial support came from the general public*163 and its followers, and that other support came from the operation of a thrift store, gasoline service station, and laundromat. Petitioner also represented that it telecast weekly television programs and distributed brochures describing the work of the foundation. However, petitioner stated that there was no organized fund-raising program operated by the foundation. Form 1023 further described petitioner's activities as seeking out persons who are discouraged, poor, and needy, so as to provide teachings, food, and shelter.

On or about December 18, 1974, respondent issued a determination letter wherein petitioner's application for recognition of exemption was granted and petitioner was determined to be exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) for years beginning May 1, 1974.

By letter dated August 8, 1985, respondent made a final adverse determination with respect to petitioner's exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Specifically, respondent determined the following:

It is determined that you are not organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes. More than an insubstantial part of your activities are not in the furtherance of an exempt purpose. You*164 serve private rather than public purposes. You are operated for the primary purpose of carrying on unrelated trades or businesses. Furthermore, net earnings inure to the benefit of private individuals.

The administrative record in this case consists of 10 volumes of files, generally consisting of correspondence between petitioner and respondent, petitioner's accounting records, articles of incorporation, corporate resolutions, and application for exempt status pursuant to section 501(c)(3), as well as respondent's examiner's report, and revocation of petitioner's exempt status. The parties also submitted a stipulation of facts, and two supplemental stipulation of facts, as well as various exhibits introduced separately at trial, a substantial portion of which consisted of photographs and corporate resolutions. The corporate resolutions were authorizations to purchase certain items, or to engage in certain activities, all with the avowed purpose of being in furtherance of petitioner's mission, i.e., the spreading of the Gospel. The entire record contains numerous instances of duplicative corporate resolutions in the administrative record, the stipulations, and those introduced*165 at trial. We note that no summary was prepared by either side concerning the various activities represented by the resolutions, according to year or by volume of expenditure.

The accounting records for all years (apparently prepared by independent accountants who were neither associates nor members of petitioner) were generally incomplete.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Asmark Institute, Inc. v. Commissioner
486 F. App'x 566 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1992 T.C. Memo. 155, 63 T.C.M. 2422, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamo-found-v-commissioner-tax-1992.