Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
11albion
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
2albion
2confidencegames
7confidencegames
5albion
2defense
1defense
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
299
2lookingforthegoodwar
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
3theleastofus
1lauber
2trap
4confidencegames
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
14albion
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
199
399
2paradise
1albion
Betty Friedan 360x1000
4albion
7albion
George F Wil...360x1000
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
storyparadox3
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
1transcendentalist
1confidencegames
storyparadox2
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
499
Gilgamesh 360x1000
5confidencegames
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
10abion
6albion
1lookingforthegoodwar
LillianFaderman
13albion
9albion
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
11632
1gucci
2theleastofus
3defense
1falsewitness
2gucci
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
2transadentilist
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
3albion
1jesusandjohnwayne
2falsewitness
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
1trap
12albion
Tad Friend 360x1000
1lafayette
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Storyparadox1
6confidencegames
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1paradide
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
3confidencegames
3paradise
8albion'
2lafayette
1empireofpain
lifeinmiddlemarch2
lifeinmiddlemarch1
1theleasofus
1madoff
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000

 

kelvin octa at Pexels

This was originally published on PAOO on July 15th, 2010.  After nearly a decade of blogging, this remains the funniest decision I have ever encountered.

Free Fertility Foundation v. Com 135 TC 2

I had originally thought of calling this “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”, but I figured I’ll get in enough trouble without quoting Don Imus. Free Fertility Foundation v. Com 135 TC 2 sounds like something you might read in Onion, but it is a genuine tax court decision. I had noted its precursor back when I was not tax blogging and might have got around to it.

PLR 200736307 and related PLR 200737044 revoked the exempt status of a nameless organization whose charitable purpose was the provision of donated sperm to worthy women. The IRS (they don’t say how) determined that 88% of said sperm if you will excuse the expression, came from the same donor, who along with his father founded and ran the organization, The canned language of one of the rulings invites the organizers to apply to the Tax Court for declaratory judgment. Apparently they did.

So we are able to get details. Failure to obtain exempt status has not put the foundation under. You can get all the details on http://www.freedonr.com/. The donor catalog (which has one entry) has extensive information on the intellectual achievements of the donor including for example :

4th grade: 3rd place in school science fair with science project entitled “Using Red Cabbage Juice to Determine Acidity”.

I guess that is something that a prospective mom would want to know about.

At any rate the Tax Court went along with the IRS on this one. It boils down to his exempt purpose not benefiting a broad enough class of people. The petitioner claimed it was a very broad class indeed namely all women in the world capable of bearing children. The tax court thought the class somewhat more limited – namely women who want to bear his children. In prefacing their decision they did however make the following observation :

The free provision of sperm may, under appropriate circumstances, be a charitable activity.