Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Torruella, Lynch, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
John J.E. Markham, II, with whom Markham & Read was on brief,
for appellant.
Anthony T. Sheehan, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of
Justice, with whom Caroline D. Ciraolo, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, and Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorney, Tax Division, were on
brief, for appellee.
TORRUELLA,
Circuit
Judge.
Daniel
H.
George,
Jr.,
U.S.C.
501(c)(4).
We
agree
with
the
tax
court's
and
conducted
chemical
Massachusetts.
experiments
supplements
George
also
in
worked
and
his
with
created
home
in
health
mineral,
Rockport,
supplement
-2-
The supplement
addition
to
his
dealings
with
the
supplement
group,"
members
of
promoted
George's
supplements
supplements
to
attendees.
Between
and
24
people
Part of
the
portion
of
the
fees
as
payment
for
supplements
he
administered.
George did not issue receipts or otherwise document the
payments he received from the supplement companies or individuals.
The only record of George's transactions was his deposit of these
funds
into
maintained.
fourteen
different
personal
bank
accounts
he
-3-
During an
interview with an IRS agent, George admitted he had not paid any
taxes since the 1970s.1
George
to
thirty
months'
imprisonment.
We
upheld
filing for tax-exempt status "within 15 months from the end of the
month
in
which
application
according
[Biogenesis]
to
also
supplements
described
George,
for
to
was
Biogenesis's
expand
treatments
created
upon
based
formed."
mission,
his
on
or
which
research
cellular
to
that
Biogenesis
would
achieve
this
was,
create
regeneration
The
goal
by
George
renting
The
in
which
George's
Social
Security
payments
were
deposited).
The IRS subsequently issued a Notice of Deficiency to
George stating that he owed taxes, plus penalties, on income earned
for the tax years 1995 through 2002.
petition for review with the tax court, claiming that the deposits
and interest earned for those tax years were not his income but
Biogenesis's.
-5-
during this period were commercial and did not further social
welfare.
full
amount
of
the
deficiency. 2
alleged
This
timely
appeal
followed.
III.
"We review decisions of the tax court 'in the same manner
and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil
actions tried without a jury.'"
Thus,
its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings
for clear error.
On
Id.
appeal,
George
renews
his
claim
that
Biogenesis
were
not
taxable
as
his
personal
income.
Section
of
its
section
501(c)(3)
status,
the
tax
court's
As
threshold
matter,
George
claims
that
because
of
charitable
1.501(c)(3)-1."
set
forth
in
paragraph
(d)(2)
26 C.F.R. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i).
of
George
only
George's
unverified
representations.
These
Organization Requirement
Alternatively, George claims that the tax court erred in
determining
that
Biogenesis
did
not
independently
fulfill
The party
1193 (10th Cir. 2003); Fed'n Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Comm'r, 625
F.2d 804, 806 (8th Cir. 1980).
-9-
filings.
George's
argument
fails
for
two
reasons.
First, it was proper for the tax court to look for objective
indicia of organizational form such as filings and records.6
We
not
entitled
organizations
in
to
an
part
instruction
because
he
on
section
"did
not
501(c)(4)
operate
an
Other courts
We see no error in
the
tax
court
did
not
view
the
lack
of
considered the evidence in the record and, after weighing all these
factors, concluded that George and the core group did not operate
like an organization in the relevant tax years.
As noted by the
tax court, one of the core group members did not view herself as
a member of an organization.
strong
George
George
exempt
fact that George "was the only 'member' of his group with control
over
the
alleged
organization's
funds
in
his
personal
bank
accounts."
Based on this evidence, the tax court could reasonably
conclude that the core group consisted of individuals who were
interested in George's supplements and advice, not members of an
organization.
have
continued
alleged
mission
of
building
upon
participated
in
the
research
and
creation
of
the
George argues the tax court should have given this witness's
testimony less weight because "her function in the organization
[preparing food for the retreats] had nothing to do with its legal
status." In other words, George argues that the tax court gave
improper weight to the testimony of a witness he views as less
persuasive than other core group members who testified.
"[W]eighing the evidence . . . is uniquely the province of the
[trial] court." Fed. Refinance Co. v. Klock, 352 F.3d 16, 29 (1st
Cir. 2003). We thus find no error in the tax court's consideration
of this testimony.
-12-
That George's
of
the
tax
court's
analysis
that
the
creation
of
the
supplements and the control over the group's funding were not
distinct from George.
organization
without
core
group
and
retreat
participants
income.").
George
has
shown
neither
any
sufficient
evidence
need
not
go
further.
Because
we
find
no
-14-