Form St 04-20 - Recommendation For Disposition Page 10

ADVERTISEMENT

salary, it’s going to come from XYZ; is that correct?
A. I would suspect, yes, because my salary does come from Life
Sources and not [ABC].
Tr. p. 53. No questions were asked of Dr. John Doe on redirect. Tr. p. 54.
It was never explained how free consultation and free education programs for
medical personnel who are presumably going to recommend ABC’s services to fee
paying customers can be considered a charitable contribution. Assuming the consultation
and education are charitable, it was never explained how the “uncompensated services”
of Dr. John Doe can be considered a contribution of ABC when Dr. John Doe is not an
employee of ABC.
According to ABC’s Form 990, “XYZ” is a “related organization.” Dept. Ex. No.
2. There was testimony at the evidentiary hearing that ABC “controls” XYZ. Tr. p. 57.
Although this may be the case, XYZ is not the applicant and is not applying for the sales
tax exemption. No financial statements or other information was admitted for XYZ and I
am unable to conclude that XYZ is a charitable organization in accordance with Illinois
statutes. The situation with XYZ is the opposite of the situation with the salaries paid to
ABC’s officers by the Institute, discussed above. ABC apparently wants to consider
XYZ’ charitable contribution of $439,114 as the charitable contribution of ABC. On the
other hand, ABC apparently wants to consider the salaries paid to its officers by the
Institute, which is also a “related organization,” as not paid by ABC. In effect, ABC
wants this tribunal to consider the financial information of its related organizations, but
only if the information is favorable toward ABC’s request for a sales tax exemption.
In exemption cases the applicant, which in this case is ABC and not its “related
organizations,” bears the burden of proving by “clear and convincing” evidence that the
10

ADVERTISEMENT

00 votes

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories

Parent category: Legal