Rancho Santa Fe Association v. United States

589 F. Supp. 54 (1984)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Rancho Santa Fe Association v. United States

United States District Court for the Southern District of California
589 F. Supp. 54 (1984)

Facts

Rancho Santa Fe Association, Inc. (the association) (plaintiff) was a homeowners’ association with approximately 3,000 members who owned property in Rancho Santa Fe, a large, self-contained housing community near San Diego. The association directed the governance of property within the development by enforcing protective covenants and by organizing various boards, including planning, park, health, library, and recreation boards. The association was incorporated as a nonprofit cooperative association in 1927 and in 1942 was granted exempt status under the predecessor to § 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which provided exemption from income taxation for, among other things, civic leagues and other nonprofit organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. Although there was no intervening change in the association’s operations or the statutory language, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) revoked the association’s exempt status in 1979. The IRS had determined the association was not operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare because the common areas it owned and maintained were not all open for the use and enjoyment of the general public. The association owned 600 of the approximately 6,100 acres in the development. Half of the association’s property was dedicated to parkland and open space, and 165 acres were improved as playgrounds, athletic fields, a public parking lot, a community clubhouse, and hiking and bridle trails. The remaining 135 acres comprised a golf course and tennis courts, which the public could use only as guests of members. Other than the golf course and tennis courts, the association’s property was open to the public. The association paid taxes under protest and sued for a refund and declaration of its exempt status under § 501(c)(4). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Enright, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 802,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership