Chattanooga Auto. Club v. Commissioner

12 T.C. 967, 1949 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 175
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 8, 1949
DocketDocket No. 15138
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 12 T.C. 967 (Chattanooga Auto. Club 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
Chattanooga Auto. Club v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 967, 1949 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 175 (tax 1949).

Opinions

OPINION.

Mukdock, Judge-.

The Commissioner has provided in his regulations for many years that an organization will not be deemed exempt if it engages in traffic for profit, Regulations 33, article 72, to Regulations 111, section 29.101 (9)-l, although a profit from an activity merely incidental to its primary purpose may not render it subject to tax. This petitioner has gone beyond its original purpose as set forth in its bylaws. It was not operated during the taxable year “exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes.” Sec. 101(9), I. R. C.1 Its principal activity was the rendering of services of a commercial nature to members at a lower cost than they would have to pay elsewhere. It thereby competed with others rendering similar services as a regular business for profit. Apparently it paid commissions to persons acting as its salesmen to induce motorists to join. The commercial services included furnishing bail bonds, accident insurance, lock and key service, notarial service, towing, and emergency road service. Some of these were fully paid for by the annual dues, while the dues paid for part only of the others. These were not merely incidental to some other transcending purpose of the petitioner. The petitioner was definitely engaged in business of a kind generally carried on for profit. It had some profits from that business and its members profited by receiving the service cheaper than they could have obtained it elsewhere. Such an organization is not exempt from tax under section 101(9). We respectfully disagree with the holding of the court in California State Automobile Association v. Smyth, 77 Fed. Supp. 131.

Reviewed by the Court.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

Related

Orange County Agricultural Soc. v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 380 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Santa Barbara Club v. Commissioner
68 T.C. 200 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Lake Petersburg Asso. v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 55 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'DISTRIBUTING COMPANY v. United States
206 F. Supp. 330 (S.D. California, 1962)
New Jersey Automobile Club v. United States
181 F. Supp. 259 (Court of Claims, 1960)
Allied Trades Club, Inc. v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 1017 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner
20 T.C. 1033 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
American Auto. Asso. v. Commissioner
19 T.C. 1146 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
American Automobile Ass'n v. Commissioner
19 T.C. 1146 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
C. F. Mueller Co. v. Commissioner
14 T.C. 922 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Automobile Club of St. Paul v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 1152 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Keystone Auto. Club v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 1038 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Keystone Automobile Club v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 1038 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Chattanooga Auto. Club v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 967 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 T.C. 967, 1949 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chattanooga-auto-club-v-commissioner-tax-1949.