Attorney-at-Law

EVERY GAMBLER KNOWS – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 03/09/2016 at 13:59

I’ve been doing this (like, practicing law) a long time. I’ve been threatened with lawsuits, disciplinary action and IRS audits. And I’m still here. And I have every intention of remaining here, telling it like I see it. So spare me the argy-bargy.

If you’re unhappy with the law or the judges, tell your congresspeople or take an appeal.

See my blogpost “Every Gambler Knows,” 11/16/15.

And now see Gamehearts, A Montana Nonprofit Corporation, Docket No. 20303-13X, filed 3/9/16.

Gamehearts claims Tax Court went beyond IRS’ rationale for dumping their 501(c)(3) status, thus dissing the record rule, and want Rule 161 reconsideration.

Well, the gamesters get an eyeful.

“Petitioner argues that we went beyond the reasons given by respondent in deciding that petitioner was not entitled to section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Petitioner appears to believe mistakenly that we must reject respondent’s determination unless we adopt respondent’s reasoning in its entirety; to the contrary if one of respondent’s reasons is correct under the law and is supported by the administrative record that is sufficient to sustain respondent’s determination. See Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 558, 575, 594 (1994), aff’d, 37 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that the Commissioner erred in his determination that the taxpayer operated in furtherance of a substantial nonexempt, private purpose, but sustaining the Commissioner’s determination that the taxpayer did not operate exclusively for an exempt charitable purpose under section 501(c)(3)).” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Pugh goes on: “We upheld respondent’s [IRS’] determination that petitioner’s nonexempt activities were substantial because of the nature of the activities offered as therapy-recreational gaming. The administrative record, including petitioner’s application for exemption and subsequent correspondence in support thereof, describes the activities as gaming and therapeutic recreation and compares them to those offered in the for-profit markets. We therefore reject petitioner’s concerns that we strayed beyond the reasons offered by respondent for rejecting petitioner’s application for exemption or considered facts that are not in the administrative record.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Now instead of sending me billets doux, take an appeal.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: