Revenue Ruling 81-111
Internal Revenue Service
1981-1 C.B. 509 (1981)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought to provide guidance about the operation of § 4943(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (code). Section 4943(c)(2)(B) raised the percentage limit of a corporation’s stock that a private foundation was permitted to hold if certain requirements were met. As part of its guidance, the IRS presented two variations on a hypothetical scenario concerning a private foundation that qualified for tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) of the code. Both variations involved corporations in which the foundation owned stock. In the first situation, (1) the foundation owned 15 percent of the corporation’s stock; (2) disqualified persons—that is, people with close ties to the foundation, such as a founding donor or an officer—owned another 20 percent; and (3) an individual with no connection to the foundation owned the remaining 65 percent. The individual with no connection to the foundation used his 65 percent stake to elect a majority of the corporation’s board members. In the second situation, the foundation again owned 15 percent of the corporation’s stock, and disqualified persons owned another 20 percent. However, the remaining 65 percent was widely held among many individuals, none of whom had sufficient personal holdings to exert influence on the corporation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
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.