Brundage v. Commissioner

54 T.C. 1468, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 98
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 8, 1970
DocketDocket No. 1209-68
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 54 T.C. 1468 (Brundage 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
Brundage v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1468, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 98 (tax 1970).

Opinion

OPINION

Dawson, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $15,547.59 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for the year 1968.

The only issue for decision is whether a gift made by petitioners in 1963 to the City and County of San Francisco for use in the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum qualifies for the additional deduction of 10 percent of adjusted gross income under section 170(b) (1) (A) (ii), I.R.C. 1954,1 as a gift to the type of “educational organization” defined in section 503(b) (2).

All of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference and are adopted as our findings of fact. Those facts which we regard as pertinent to the disposition of the controverted issue are summarized below.

Avery and Elizabeth D. Brundage (herein called petitioners) are husband and wife who resided in Chicago, Ill., at the time they filed their petition in this proceeding. They filed their Federal income tax return for the year 1963 on the cash receipts basis with the district director of internal revenue at Chicago, Ill. Petitioners signed consents extending the period of time within which respondent might assess additional income taxes to December 31, 1967. Respondent timely mailed his notice of deficiency to petitioners on December 27, 1967. The notice determined a deficiency by increasing petitioners’ taxable income for the year 1963 by disallowing certain charitable deductions totaling $22,892.89.

Avery Brundage (herein called petitioner) acquired over a period of years an extensive and significant collection of oriental art objects. On July 15, 1959, petitioners and the Avery Brundage Foundation (an Illinois not-for-profit corporation) agreed to convey their respective shares of the Avery Brundage Oriental Art Collection to the City and County of San Francisco (a municipal corporation, sometimes referred to herein as the City). The City agreed to permanently house and display the collection in the M. II. de Young Memorial Museum, which is a public museum supported by the City. The collection consists of approximately 6,000 pieces, including jade, Chinese bronzes and ceramics, and Khmer sculpture. To house these treasures the voters of San Francisco approved a $2,725,000 bond issue for the construetion of a new west wing for the museum. Petitioners made gifts of parts of the collection in each of the years 1961,1962, and 1963.

The museum was conveyed to the City of San Francisco in 1919 “in the name of humanity and education,” and was accepted by the City for the purpose of “affording to all an opportunity for education, recreation and the appreciation of the arts.” Supporting the proposition to authorize the bond issue to finance the new wing, the City informed voters that the collection “is a priceless educational treasure which will provide enriched learning experiences for San Francisco’s school children.” The voters approved the bond issue on June 7, 1960.

In 1963 the museum maintained an education department under supervision of two curators, Charles and Miriam Lindstrom. In presenting the museum’s educational programs the Lindstroms were assisted by members of the museum staff, a group of trained, unpaid volunteers (docents), a group of 25 students from San Francisco State College who received academic credit for working as teaching assistants in the museum’s classes for children, and various guest lecturers from universities and museums throughout the nation and abroad.

During 1963 the museum offered three 10-week courses for children: “Picture-making” for children 4 to 8 years of age; “Art and Nature” for children 9 to 11; and “Fundamentals of Art” for those 12 to 15. These 10-week courses were offered in four separate terms during the year. Total attendance (one person at one session) for 1963 was 6,334, with registration exceeding capacity.

During 1963 the museum also offered courses for adults. “Exercises in Perception,” combining lectures, practice, and instruction, consisted of 12 weekly sessions, each session being offered three times during the week. Attendance (again one person at one session) totaled 3,740 persons. “Exercises in Oil Painting,” a beginning course for those who completed “Exercises in Perception,” offered a 4-week course of 6 sessions, or 'an 8-week course of 24 sessions and drew 2,905 in total attendance. “Analysis of Masterworks,” an advance course in painting, drew 540 persons to its 14 sessions.

For prospective docents the museum conducted a training course lasting 10 weeks. Thirty-five persons took the course in 1963.

Special lectures for visiting university classes or adult groups were attended by 7,360 persons. The guest lectures and recorded lectures were presented to 31,650 adults. Over 1,500 school teachers, accompanied by 38,166 school children, heard gallery lectures given by the docents.

For all parts of the educational program, total attendance (one person at one session) in 1963 was 92,598. Total attendance for the museum as a whole was 1,162,558 during the fiscal year ended June 30,1963. The City, through its board of education, operates the public schools in the San Francisco area. The San Francisco Unified School District in 1963 operated 101 elementary schools, 15 junior high schools, 8 high schools, one junior college, and 19 miscellaneous educational facilities. The schools employed 4,510 teachers who taught 135,595 students. In 1963,1,074 classes with 38,166 students from these schools and others visited the museum and heard gallery talks or lectures. Often the lectures gave special attention to subjects of interest to particular classes. For many years the museum has provided special services for the San Francisco schools, including the loan of exhibits, audio-visual materials, and lecturers. In 1963, as is ¡the custom, it held the Ninth Biennial Exhibition of Children’s Art in cooperation with the school district.

The nexus to the allowance of the additional deduction of 10 percent of adjusted gross income specified in section 170(b) (1) (A)2 is whether the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum is an “educational organization” as defined in section 503(b) (2),3 prior to its repeal by the Tax Reform Act of 1969.

Respondent acknowledges that the museum is “educational” in the broad sense in which that term is used in section 501 (c) (3), but argues that it does not possess the specific requirements of the type of student-faculty “educational organization” described in section 503 (b) (2). We disagree with respondent. We think the museum qualifies as an “educational organization” within the purview of section 503 (b) (2). First, the museum has a “regular faculty.” The two curators of the education department, together with the paid staff, fit the ordinary definition of “teaching staff and those members of the administrative staff having academic rank in a college, university or other educational institution.Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1961). Second, the courses for adults and children, consisting of related sessions presented over a period of weeks, satisfy the curriculum requirement. Third, in these courses, regular enrollment was required because of their limited capacity and the logical progression of the presentations.

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

Related

Mayo Clinic v. United States
997 F.3d 789 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
Redlands Surgical Servs. v. Commissioner
113 T.C. No. 3 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES v. Commissioner
113 T.C. No. 3 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
Geisinger Health Plan v. Commissioner
100 T.C. No. 26 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Miller v. United States
393 F. Supp. 831 (E.D. Missouri, 1975)
Brundage v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1468 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 T.C. 1468, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brundage-v-commissioner-tax-1970.