Association of the Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
858 F.2d 876 (1988)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (bar association) (plaintiff) qualified as a tax-exempt organization under § 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code (code) but not under § 501(c)(3). The bar association had over 50 committees and engaged in a wide variety of activities. Among the activities delegated to one committee was the rating of candidates in electoral races for judicial seats. The committee created three ratings for judicial candidates: approved, approved as highly qualified, and not approved. The ratings were nonpartisan and purportedly considered only traits such as a candidate’s professional abilities, experience, and temperament rather than a candidate’s ideology. The bar association admitted that its goal in publishing the ratings was to prevent unqualified people from being elected as judges. Tax exemption under § 501(c)(3) had advantages over exemption under § 501(c)(6) that the bar association sought to take advantage of. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) denied the bar association’s application under § 501(c)(3). The bar association challenged that denial in the United States Tax Court, which ruled in favor of the bar association. The IRS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Van Graafeiland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
