Zagfly, Inc. v. Commissioner

603 F. App'x 638
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 2015
Docket13-71566
StatusUnpublished

This text of 603 F. App'x 638 (Zagfly, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zagfly, Inc. v. Commissioner, 603 F. App'x 638 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Zagfly, Inc., appeals the Tax Court’s denial of its petition for a declaration of tax-exempt status under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3). Reviewing the Tax Court’s nonexemption determination de novo and its underlying *639 factual findings for clear error, see Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir.2008), we affirm.

The Tax Court correctly applied the “operational test” under Treasury Regulation § 1.501(c)(3) — 1(c)(1), determining Zagfly would not be “operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes.” It based this conclusion on the factual finding that Zag-fly would not be engaged primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of the exempt purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Based on its filings with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Zagfl/s main activity would be to operate a website through which its customers could purchase flowers at market prices. After establishing the flower website’s viability, Zagfly would expand to market other goods and services. Although Zagfly planned to donate its business profits to charitable organizations, the Tax Court did not err in concluding the donation of business profits was not an exempt purpose. See Riker v. Comm’r, 244 F.2d 220, 227-28 (9th Cir.1957). 1

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Because we affirm the Tax Court's nonex-emption determination under Treasury Regulation § 1.501 (c)(3) — 1 (c)(1), we decline to address the court's “unrelated trade or business" analysis under § 1.5 01(c)(3) — 1(e)(2) and the Commissioner's alternative argument that Zagfly would not qualify for exemption because it would be a "feeder organization.”

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

Related

Johanson v. Commissioner
541 F.3d 973 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 F. App'x 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zagfly-inc-v-commissioner-ca9-2015.