The Tax Court today looked at whether a heretofore charitable organization (a 501(c)(3)) that has a gaming operation can retain its’ charitable (501(c)(3)) status. This case gives an excellent example of some of the drawbacks of “charitable” gambling from a charity’s perspective.
The petitioner, a Middletown, Ohio association that had been granted 501(c)(3) status in 1982, began to operate bingo games and pull-tab gambling (pull-tabs are where a card or ticket is given to a customer, a symbol is revealed, and then the customer looks to see if the symbol is a “winner”) to fund their charitable activities. So far so good. Under Ohio law, such gaming for charity is allowed if a security guard is at the gaming establishment. So the association hired a security firm to provide such a guard.
The IRS then audited the association for 1992 through 1995. The association made a number of mistakes. First, it paid the staff working the bingo games/pull-tab sales “under the table.” Second, the charities receiving the funding were, according to the Tax Court, controlled by the association’s President. Third, while the association raised between $870,000 to $2,000,000 through the gambling operation, they donated to charity between $270,000 and $440,000 each year with the donations decreasing while the receipts were increasing.
Under the Tax Code, a charitable organization must be “…organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes.” The IRS claimed that the association did not “…[engage] primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of such exempt purposes specified in section 501(c)(3).” [Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs] The IRS felt that the association engaged primarily in gaming (not charitable work), that the association served the interests of its founder (rather than charitable work), and that it was a “feeder” under §502.
The Tax Court found that the association was primarily a gaming organization, not a charitable association. First, the under-the-table payments undoubtedly started the negative thinking. Second, most (if not all) of the workers at the bingo nights were compensated, and were not performing their work for charity. Third, the Court believed the IRS’ witnesses and disbelieved the association’s witnesses.
So if you’re going to have a charitable 501(c)(3) association, make sure you don’t gamble that designation away. Scrupulously follow the Tax Code or you’ll roll craps.
Case: South Community Association v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-285