Scripture Press Foundation v. United States

152 Ct. Cl. 463
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 18, 1961
DocketNo. 115-56
StatusPublished

This text of 152 Ct. Cl. 463 (Scripture Press Foundation v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scripture Press Foundation v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 463 (cc 1961).

Opinion

JoNes, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff is the successor of a corporation known as Scripture Press, Inc., organized in 1932 as a profit corporation under Illinois law. In May 1945, the stock of Scripture Press, Inc., was donated by its stockholders to plaintiff, Scripture Press Foundation, and Scripture Press, Inc., was then liquidated into plaintiff.

Plaintiff was organized on May 5, 1945, as a nonprofit, nonstock; corporation, pursuant to the “General Not for Profit Corporation Act” of the State of Illinois. Following [465]*465application by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue issued a ruling in 1946 declaring plaintiff to be exempt from Federal income tax under the provisions of § 101(6) of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1939, as amended,1 on the ground that the plaintiff was organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes.

On December 31, 1953, the Chief, Exempt Organizations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue, issued a ruling that plaintiff beginning with the fiscal year ended January 31, 1953, and for subsequent years, was not exempt from Federal taxes. Thereafter, plaintiff timely filed on March 18,1955, corporate tax returns for the taxable years ended January 31, 1953, and January 31,1954, reporting net taxable income for those years of $18,827 and $18,544, respectively, as representing profits from store operations and paid taxes for those years of $5,648.10 and $5,563.20, respectively. Plaintiff reported its store operations as taxable on the ground that amounts realized on these operations might be, although the plaintiff does not so admit, considered unrelated business as defined in §§ 4212 and 422 3 of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1939, as amended by the Bevenue Act of 1950, more particularly defined as Supplement U Net Income.

Thereafter, plaintiff duly filed claims for refund for taxes so paid. As no action was taken by the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue with regard to these claims, plaintiff filed suit in this court to recover these taxes. Subsequently, deficiency assessments were made by the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue, assessing taxes for 1953 at $153,058.48 and for 1954 at $173,039.63. Plaintiff paid the additional assessment of $147,410.38 for 1953, filed a timely claim for refund, supplementing the prior claim for the same year, which claim was denied by the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue. Consequently, plaintiff amended its original petition to this court to include the payment of the additional assessment for [466]*466the year 1953, requesting recovery of taxes for 1953, totaling $159,588.18, including interest paid, plus interest thereon. Plaintiff has elected to present its petition against the deficiency assessment for the 1954 fiscal year in the Tax Court of the United States.

All issues concerning the amount of taxes, if any, to which plaintiff might be entitled to have refunded have been reserved for future proceedings. The only issues now before the court are as follows: (1) Is plaintiff entitled to exemption from Federal income taxes under § 101(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 501(c) (3)4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954? (2) If the plaintiff is so exempt, is any part of its activities subject to unrelated business tax under § 421 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and under § 5125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ?

The first issue which we must resolve is whether plaintiff is exempt under § 101 (6)6 of the 1939 Code and the equivalent provision in the 1954 Code, § 501 (c) (3)7. The plaintiff con[467]*467tends with, considerable force that the single and overwhelmingly dominant motif of its activities is the betterment of the Protestant Sunday Schools of America. In other words, plaintiff asserts that it is “operated exclusively” for a religious purpose under § 101(6). The defendant contends with equal vigor that plaintiff’s purpose is the preparation and sale of religious literature, and that it is therefore not “operated exclusively” for religious and charitable purposes. The defendant asserts that the sale of religious literature is not an activity which qualifies for tax exemption.

Before we inquire into the tax significance of plaintiff’s activities, we think it pertinent to discuss the background of plaintiff’s founders. The dominant personalities behind plaintiff and its predecessor, Scripture Press, Inc., were Mr. and Mrs. Victor Cory. Until 1925, Mr. Cory had been an electrical engineer. In that year, he and Mrs. Cory agreed to act on their deep interest in religion. Mr. Cory went to work for a religious publishing company. Gradually, Mr. Cory became concerned with what he regarded as the poor quality of existing teaching materials for Bible instruction in Sunday schools. Therefore in 1932, Mr. Victor Cory, his wife, Bernice, and others, organized Scripture Press, Inc., devoted to the preparation and sale of religious literature. Scripture Press, Inc., was succeeded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, like its predecessor, has enjoyed a steadily increasing rate of sales over the years. The plaintiff is not connected with any particular religious denomination or church.

There is unfortunately no case law on the point as to whether a religious publishing house, lacking denominational ties, merits tax exempt status. However, there are cases involving publishing houses which are instructive. Counsel for both sides cite us to Forest Press, Inc. v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 265 (1954). Forest Press was organized to prepare and publish a widely accepted system for indexing library collections, the Dewey Decimal Classification System. Forest Press sought exemption under the provisions of § 101(6) of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1939. The Commissioner of Internal Bevenue asserted that Forest Press was engaged in a commercial publishing enterprise and was consequently neither organized nor operated exclusively for [468]*468scientific, literary, or educational purposes within the meaning of § 101(6).

The Tax Court declared Forest Press exempt. The defendant urges that any comparison between Forest Press and the plaintiff can only serve to point up the nonexempt nature of plaintiff’s activities. The defendant asserts that in Forest Press the publications were priced to recover manufacturing cost plus enough to sustain the small staff of seven to ten persons working for the corporation.

The defendant distinguishes Forest Press from the plaintiff by comparing the slight profits realized by the former with the very substantial profits realized by the latter. If the defendant seeks by this distinction to suggest that where an organization’s profits are very large a conclusion that the organization is noncharitable must follow, we reject such a suggestion. If, however, defendant means only to suggest that it is at least some evidence indicative of a commercial character, we are inclined to agree.

Another case that is helpful, and perhaps more directly in point, is Saint Germain Foundations. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 648 (1956). In that case, the petitioner, the Saint Germain Foundation, sought to qualify as an organization exempt from Federal income tax under § 101(6) of the 1939 Code. The Saint Germain Foundation was organized for the purpose of propagating the teachings of the “I Am” Keligious Activity.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 Ct. Cl. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scripture-press-foundation-v-united-states-cc-1961.