Contents

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS• Cooperative educational service organizations 326• Amateur sports organizations 327Consequently, the organizations that are eligible charitable donees for purposesof the law of charitable giving are those that are charitable in the commonlaw sense (most of which have been rendered charitable by statute, regulation,or IRS ruling) and those that have been encompassed by statutory definition.In one instance, however, the IRS refused to allow a charitable contributiondeduction for a gift made to a charitable organization, which had as its exemptpurpose the preservation of local landmarks, because it was determined thatthe gift was “earmarked for and primarily benefit[ed]” a noncharitable recipient(a college fraternity). 328Requirement of Charitable Class. It is generally a requirement, as to taxdeductibility of contributions, that those who are to benefit from a charitableactivity must constitute a sufficiently large or indefinite class (often referred toas a charitable class), unless the benefits to a smaller class are incidental. 329 This isanother way of saying that a charitable organization may not be operated forprivate benefit, other than insubstantially. Thus, for example, it is inadequate ifthe beneficiaries of the alleged charitable activities are specifically named or aresolely relatives of the donor. 330 An organization established to benefit one individualcannot be charitable even if it would be charitable if the same activitieswere undertaken for a charitable class. 331• A trust created for the benefit of an aged clergyman and his spouse washeld to be a private trust that did not involve exempt activities, irrespectiveof the fact that the two beneficiaries served were needy. 332• A trust the purpose of which was to pay a certain sum to all individualsenrolled in a certain school on a certain date was held to be a privateentity. 333• A bequest to a trust for scholarships at two universities, where the onlypotential recipients were individuals with the same surname as the decedent(about 600 families), was held not to be a charitable bequest. 334326 IRC § 501(f).327 IRC § 501(c)(3) and (j).328 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9247030. See also Tripp v. Commissioner, 337 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1964); Phinney v. Dougherty,307 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1962); Davidson v. Commissioner, 60 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1932); Rev. Rul. 69-573, 1969-2 C.B. 125; Rev. Rul. 60-367, 1960-2 C.B. 73.329 The IRS wrote that “restriction of charitable work to a small or identifiable class will cause such work to failto meet the definition of charitable . . . unless such benefits are incidental to an identifiable public benefit.”Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9702040. Also: “A class of beneficiaries designated by the donor or by the donee’s charter maybe challenged where the class of prospective beneficiaries is so limited in size that the donee organization isconsidered to benefit specified individuals.” Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9316051.330 Rev. Rul. 56-403, 1956-2 C.B. 307. A corporation was denied a charitable deduction for amounts given to afoundation established to provide educational opportunities for employees and their children because the foundation’seducational benefits inured to only four children of the corporation’s employees. Charleston ChairCo. v. United States, 203 F. Supp. 126 (E.D.S.C. 1962).331 See, e.g., Wendy L. Parker Rehabilitation Foundation Inc. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C.M. (CCH) 51 (1986).332 Carrie A. Maxwell Trust, Pasadena Methodist Foundation v. Commissioner, 2 T.C.M. (CCH) 905 (1943).333 Rev. Rul. 57-449, 1957-2 C.B. 622.334 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9631004. 102