Page:IRS 1990 EO CPE Text P1-52.pdf/2

 . An organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its net earnings inure in whole or in part to the benefit of private individuals. For the definition of the words "private shareholder or individual," see paragraph (c) of section 1.501(a)-1.

Regs. 1.501(a)-1(c) states that "[t]he words 'private shareholder or individual' in section 501 refer to persons having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization."

The regulations are silent concerning the meaning of "inures" because neither the courts nor the Service have found it necessary to place any special meaning on the term. Whether an impermissible benefit has been conferred on someone is treated essentially as a question of fact. Rather, the Service and the courts have focused on the meaning of the term "private."

The word "private" has been held to mean the antonym of "public"—used to distinguish a private individual from the general public—and is intended to limit the scope of those persons who personally profit from an organization to the intended beneficiaries of the allowable activities. See, 274 F. 125, 127 (W.D. Mo. 1921). Thus, the capacity in which an individual derives financial benefit will determine whether prohibited inurement exists.

The distinction between an individual as a private person and the individual as a member of the general public incorporates the following two concepts which are basic to unraveling inurement problems: (1) An individual is not entitled to unjustly enrich himself at the organization's expense. (2) Benefits directed to an individual as a member of a charitable class do not constitute unjust enrichment.

The second proposition has created fewer problems than the first. A member of an exempt hospital's governing body can be admitted to the hospital on the same basis as any other member of the community. A donor to the public library can check books out of the library. A church officer can attend functions held or sponsored by the church. But, problems do arise when an individual's receipt of a benefit is founded on economic as well as charitable considerations.

In, T.C. Memo. 1986-348, the Tax Court upheld the Service's position that a foundation formed to aid coma victims, including a family member of the founders, was not entitled to