Skillman Family Fund Case Dismissed

Skillman Family Fund Case Dismissed
News story posted in U.S. District Court by Anonymous on 28 May 2002| comments
audience: National Publication | last updated: 18 May 2011
Print
||
Rate:

Summary

Last month, a U. S. District Court held that a family fund purportedly set up as a social club didn't qualify as a tax-exempt organization. However, the court declined to decide as a matter of law whether the fund was subject to personal holding company taxes. Now, the same court has, on the recommendation of the IRS, dismissed the case.
Published in May 2002

 Full Text:

Skillman Family Reunion Fund Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, Defendant.
No. 3:00 CV 7500 (25 Apr 2002)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JUDGMENT ENTRY

KATZ, J.

[1] Pending before this Court are (1) Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Order (Doc. No. 43). Based upon careful consideration of the parties motions and the entire record herein, the Court grants the parties' motions and clarifies its order of March 1, 2002 as follows.

[2] In its order dated March 1, 2002 (Doc. No. 36), this Court disposed of cross-motions for summary judgment in the above-captioned matter. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion in its entirety and granted summary judgment to Defendant as to the revocation of Plaintiffs § 501(c)(7) tax-exempt status and as to the non- binding effect of a 1989 determination letter regarding Plaintiff's tax exempt status. However, the Court denied Defendant's motion insofar as Defendant's motion was properly construed as seeking a declaration as to Plaintiff's status as a personal holding company. The Court granted Defendant until March 25, 2002 to file a dispositive motion on that issue.

[3] In the instant motion, Defendant maintains that "neither the complaint nor the claim for refund challenge the Fund's liability for the personal holding company tax apart from the challenge to its tax-exempt status." Def's Mem. at 3. Defendant has further clarified that "the personal holding company tax was described . . . as a consequence of the fund's arrangement if it retained its tax exempt status," Id.

[4] As neither party disputes whether Plaintiff is subject to personal holding company tax pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §542 and as Defendant's motion to dismiss is unopposed,

[5] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs motion to clarify (Doc. No. 43) is granted.

[6] FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is denied in its entirety. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 19) and motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 38) are granted.

[7] FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall supercede the judgment entry in this matter dated March 1, 2002 (Doc. No. 36).

[8] All matters being fully disposed of, this case is dismissed.

s/ David A. Katz
DAVID A. KATZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Add comment

Login to post comments

Comments

Related

Group details

  • You must login in order to post into this group.

Follow

RSS

This group offers an RSS feed.
 
7520 Rates:  Aug 1.2% Jul 1.2.% Jun 1.2.%

Already a member?

Learn, Share, Gain Insight, Connect, Advance

Join Today For Free!

Join the PGDC community and…

  • Learn through thousands of pages of content, newsletters and forums
  • Share by commenting on and rating content, answering questions in the forums, and writing
  • Gain insight into other disciplines in the field
  • Connect – Interact – Grow
  • Opt-in to Include your profile in our searchable national directory. By default, your identity is protected

…Market yourself to a growing industry