                          T.C. Memo. 2007-49



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



       FAMILIES AGAINST GOVERNMENT SLAVERY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 23936-05X.            Filed March 5, 2007.



     Percy Roy Matthews II (an officer), for petitioner.

     Mark A. Weiner, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

     SWIFT, Judge:     This is an action for section 7428

declaratory relief relating to respondent’s denial of

petitioner’s request for recognition as a section 501(c)(3) tax-

exempt organization.

     Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2005, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                              - 2 -
                           Background

     The administrative record was submitted to the Court under

Rule 217(b)(1).

     On May 23, 2003, there were filed with the secretary of

state of the State of California on petitioner’s behalf articles

of incorporation as a California nonprofit public benefit

corporation.

     In petitioner’s articles of incorporation, petitioner’s

corporate purpose is stated to be the education of the public

about “injustices to minority [A]mericans” and about “peacefully

fight[ing] for freedom.”

     On June 16, 2003, there was filed with the Franchise Tax

Board of the State of California an application on petitioner’s

behalf for exemption from California income tax.   On the

application, petitioner’s primary purpose is described as public

education.1

     On September 5, 2003, petitioner mailed to respondent a Form

1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.   On its Form 1023,

petitioner’s primary purpose is described generally as follows:


     To expose slavery and make freedom, liberty, and
     justice truly meaningful for all.




     1
      The record does not indicate whether petitioner’s
application for exemption from California income tax was granted.
                              - 3 -
     As described in the documents petitioner submitted to

respondent, petitioner’s activities consist primarily of public

protests or demonstrations that are made solely by petitioner’s

founder, Mr. Matthews, in order to educate the public as to the

alleged slavery and entrapment of Hollywood celebrities by

Government officials.2

     Language in the documents that Mr. Matthews distributes to

the public at the referred-to demonstrations alleges that the

Federal Bureau of Investigation kidnaps Hollywood celebrities and

that law enforcement personnel and private gangs are joined in a

conspiracy to kill, trap, and enslave Hollywood celebrities and

minorities “to gain more financial support” and to engage in

activities that petitioner describes as “blood sport”.   Language

in petitioner’s documents also alleges that Government-sponsored

welfare and housing programs force minority women to participate

in the above alleged conspiracy.

     From January 30 to March 10, 2004, respondent’s exempt

organizations specialist made a number of requests of petitioner

for evidence supporting the above conspiracy allegations.    The

documents petitioner submitted to respondent, however, contain




     2
      In the documents submitted to respondent and distributed to
the public, petitioner utilizes repeatedly and without permission
the names of Hollywood celebrities. To protect the privacy of
these celebrities and because their names are irrelevant to our
opinion, we do not identify their names.
                               - 4 -
only irrelevant, unintelligible, and inflammatory statements,

nonsensical distortions, and irrelevant photographs.3

     On August 4, 2004, respondent’s Exempt Organizations

Division mailed to petitioner a proposed denial of petitioner’s

requested tax-exempt status, concluding that petitioner had not

established that petitioner operates exclusively for educational

or any other exempt purpose.

     On August 30, 2004, petitioner requested a hearing with

respondent’s Appeals Office relating to the proposed denial of

petitioner’s tax-exempt status.

     From September 2004 to September 2005, respondent’s Appeals

Office gave petitioner the opportunity to submit additional

documents relating to the alleged conspiracy that formed the

content of petitioner’s purported educational activities.

Petitioner, however, only submitted additional documents similar

to the documents petitioner had earlier submitted to respondent.

     In total, petitioner submitted to respondent more than 1,000

pages of documents consisting largely of nonsensical, emotionally

charged, and incomprehensible allegations.

     On September 22, 2005, respondent’s Appeals Office mailed to

petitioner a final denial of petitioner’s requested tax-exempt



     3
      For example, documents petitioner submitted assert that
because a church located in the neighborhood of the home of
Mr. Matthews placed the title of a sermon, “Dead Man Walking,” on
its church marquee, someone was trying to threaten the life of
Mr. Matthews.
                               - 5 -
status under section 501(c)(3).   Respondent concluded that

petitioner sought to present to the public only unsupported

opinions of Mr. Matthews.

     On December 19, 2005, petitioner filed with the Court a

petition requesting section 7428 declaratory relief as to

petitioner’s tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3).


                            Discussion

     In reviewing under section 7428 respondent’s denial of an

organization’s application for initial qualification for section

501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, we ordinarily review only the

administrative record.   Rule 217(a); Natl. Association of Am.

Churches v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 18, 19-20 (1984).

     To qualify for Federal income tax-exempt status under

section 501(c)(3) as an educational organization, an organization

must, among other things, operate exclusively for educational

purposes (operational test).   Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(a), Income Tax

Regs.

     To meet the operational test, an organization must further

educational purposes and not further substantial nonexempt

purposes.   Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 558,

576 (1994), affd. 37 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 1994); sec. 1.501(c)(3)-

1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     Educational purposes include activities that instruct or

train individuals to improve or develop their capabilities and
                                - 6 -
that instruct the public on subjects useful to individuals and

beneficial to the community.    Am. Campaign Acad. v. Commissioner,

92 T.C. 1053, 1064 (1989); sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i), Income

Tax Regs.    Educational purposes do not include activities

principally involving the presentation of unsupported opinion.

Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.

     In determining whether an opinion is unsupported, respondent

primarily examines the method used to develop the opinion.     In

Rev. Proc. 86-43, sec. 3.03, 1986-2 C.B. at 730, respondent

identifies four factors to be considered in evaluating whether an

opinion is to be regarded as unsupported, as follows:


     (1)    Whether viewpoints or positions taken are
            factually unsupported;

     (2)    Whether facts are distorted;

     (3)    Whether inflammatory and disparaging material is
            utilized based more on strong emotional feelings
            than on objective evaluations; and

     (4)    Whether the organization fails to provide
            background information that would allow the public
            to understand and to evaluate the material.4


     4
      In 1980, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held
that respondent’s definition of “educational” as found in sec.
1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., was unconstitutionally
vague. Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States, 631 F.2d 1030, 1039-
1040 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Three years later, the Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit upheld respondent’s denial of an
organization’s requested tax-exempt status in which respondent
had used certain factors in applying sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i),
Income Tax Regs. Natl. Alliance v. United States, 710 F.2d 868,
874-876 (D.C. Cir. 1983). In Rev. Proc. 86-43, 1986-2 C.B. 729,
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 7 -
     The documents that petitioner presents to the public through

Mr. Matthews are full of unsupported opinions and distorted

facts.   Petitioner’s presentations and documents use inflammatory

language and emotional and irrelevant statements.   Factors one,

two, three, and four of Rev. Proc. 86-43, supra, clearly apply to

the activities of petitioner.

     Because petitioner’s activities appear principally to

involve the presentation to the public of unsupported opinions,

petitioner’s activities do not further educational purposes under

the operational test.   On the record before us, petitioner does

not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) as an

educational organization.

     Even apart from the criteria of Rev. Proc. 86-43, supra,

petitioner’s activities do not qualify as educational under the

generally accepted use of that term.    See Natl. Alliance v.

United States, 710 F.2d 868, 873, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

     Petitioner’s vague claims for qualification as a section

501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization on the grounds that it operates

for charity and for the prevention of cruelty to children


     4
      (...continued)
respondent set forth the factors that respondent had utilized in
Natl. Alliance. See Chief Counsel Advice 200620001 (May 9,
2006).

     The Tax Court has held that Rev. Proc. 86-43, supra, is
constitutional. Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102 T.C.
558, 588-589 (1994), affd. on other grounds 37 F.3d 216, 218 (5th
Cir. 1994).
                               - 8 -
similarly are totally unsupported by the record herein.      Further,

petitioner acknowledges in its application for section 501(c)(3)

tax-exempt status that petitioner would engage in legislative and

political activities generally not allowed for section 501(c)(3)

organizations.   Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii),

Income Tax Regs.

     Petitioner argues that, by deciding the issue before us only

on the administrative record, we prevent petitioner from

submitting additional evidence in support of petitioner’s tax-

exempt activities.

     Both respondent’s Exempt Organizations Division and

respondent’s Appeals Office informed petitioner of the types of

evidence that might satisfy the requirements of Rev. Proc. 86-43,

supra, and petitioner had more than ample opportunity to submit

whatever evidence it had available.     Petitioner instead chose to

submit to respondent more than 1,000 pages of incomprehensible

documents.   On the record before us, it is reasonable to hold

petitioner to the administrative record.     Petitioner has not

shown good cause for doing otherwise.     See Rule 217(a).

     We sustain respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for

tax-exempt status.


                                       Decision will be entered

                               upholding respondent’s

                               determination.
