Foundation of Human Understanding v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
614 F.3d 1383 (2010)
Facts
The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) recognized the Foundation of Human Understanding (foundation) (plaintiff) as a tax-exempt private foundation beginning in 1965. In 1970, the foundation sought recognition as a church under § 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the IRS determined instead that the foundation qualified as a publicly supported organization. Later, the foundation renewed its request to be recognized as a church, and again the IRS denied the request. The foundation appealed, and the United States Tax Court ruled in favor of the foundation. However, in the years following that decision, the foundation underwent several changes. In 2001, the IRS began an inquiry for the years 1998 through 2000. During that time, the foundation did not hold regular services at any single location but rather held 21 seminars throughout the United States. The foundation also operated an electronic ministry, broadcasting sermons over the radio and Internet at prescribed times. Listeners could call and interact with clergy over the phone during the broadcasts. The IRS determined that the foundation would retain its § 501(c)(3) status but the church status would be revoked. The foundation appealed again, and the United States Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the IRS. The foundation appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
