National Muffler Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 252,252 |
| Citation | 565 F.2d 845 |
| Parties | 77-2 USTC P 9756 NATIONAL MUFFLER DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 77-6106. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Myron P. Gordon, New York City (Monte Engler and Hoffberg, Gordon, Rabin & Engler, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Peter C. Salerno, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Southern District of New York, Kent T. Stauffer, Patrick H. Barth, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, SMITH and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.
In addition to its enormous complexity, the Internal Revenue Code often speaks in generalities, and its contours and boundaries are frequently left to be filled by administrative and judicial interpretation. We are called upon to add yet another detail to the Code's broad canvas in determining whether the National Muffler Dealers Association, Inc. ("Association") is qualified to take a tax exemption for the years 1971-73 as a "business league" under § 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. We agree with the district court that the Association does not benefit an entire "line of business" as required by the treasury regulations, and, accordingly, does not merit an exemption. We therefore affirm the dismissal of the Association's complaint.
The National Muffler Dealers Association was organized in 1971, under the New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, as a trade association of "Midas Muffler" dealers. At the time, an internal struggle was taking place within Midas International Corporation ("Midas"), the franchisor of all Midas Muffler dealers, and many of Midas's franchisees were concerned that they might suffer from the pending corporate shake-up. As a consequence of this, they formed the Association to secure themselves against the whims of a new Midas management.
Although the Association's Certificate of Incorporation described its purpose as the promotion of the best interests of muffler dealers generally, its first set of by-laws restricted membership to muffler dealers holding a valid Midas franchise. On October 23, 1972, in an apparent effort to obtain the tax benefits it now seeks, the by-laws were amended to allow any muffler franchisee to join. Since its inception, however, the Association's members have apparently all been Midas Muffler franchisees. During the tax years in question, approximately 50% of all Midas dealers were members, and although, through the Association's efforts, that figure now stands at 80%, there has never been any attempt to recruit outside of the Midas chain.
The Association first attempted to deal with a specific problem, but it soon decided to extend the scope of its activities. In its endeavors, the Association sought generally to redress the inequality of bargaining power existing between its members and Midas, and has been a formidable force at the negotiating table. As a result of its dealings with Midas, franchisees now conduct their businesses under a twenty-year franchise agreement, providing, inter alia, that specific cause must exist to terminate a franchise and that disputes must be submitted to arbitration. The group also succeeded in persuading Midas to eliminate its requirement that customers pay a service charge when they seek to replace a guaranteed Midas Muffler. The Association, in addition, provides a number of supplemental services inuring only to the benefit of its members. For example, it sponsors insurance programs, and publishes a newsletter. And, the Association holds an annual convention at which issues of concern to Midas dealers are discussed.
In evaluating the Association's claim to tax-exempt status, our inquiry must first focus on Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides an exemption to
(b)usiness leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues . . . not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
There is no challenge to the Association's non-profit status, or the disposition of its earnings. Ours is therefore the lexicographer's task of deciding what is meant by a "business league", and whether the instant Association falls within that definition.
The statute itself does not provide direct guidance. Absent such an explicit directive, we have, in the past, followed the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, and sought to define "business leagues" by looking at the general characteristics of the organizations with which they are grouped. In Produce Exchange Stock Clearing Ass'n v. Helvering, 71 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1934), Judge Swan, joined by Judges Learned Hand and Chase, denied an exemption to a stock clearing association which merely served the convenience of its members, finding that characteristic to be one not shared by the business entities listed in the statute. This approach to statutory construction is taken by the treasury regulation enacted pursuant to this section. The regulation provides that,
A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. It is an organization of the same general class as a chamber of commerce or board of trade. Thus, its activities should be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons. Treas.Reg. § 1.501(c)(6)-1 (emphasis added).
The admittedly common characteristic of the organizations enumerated in § 501(c)(6) is that they foster well-being within a broadly-defined segment of the commercial sector. For a chamber of commerce, that sector is, of course, defined geographically; for a board of trade, a specified business or industry is often an additional defining factor. Cf. Retailers Credit Ass'n v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Salt Co. v. Geostow
...of noscitur a sociis. Harris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 309 N.Y. 72, 76, 127 N.E.2d 816 (1955); see National Muffler Dealers Ass'n v. United States, 565 F.2d 845, 846 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, 440 U.S. 472, 99 S.Ct. 1304, 59 L.Ed.2d 519 (1979); see e.g., California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 107 S.Ct.......
-
Anesthesia Serv. Med. Grp., Inc. Emp. Protective Trust v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...not unreasonable in defining the term as benefits similar to life, sick, or accident benefits. See National Muffler Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 565 F.2d 845, 846 (2d Cir. 1977), affd. 440 U.S. 472 (1979). Petitioners cite Grange Insurance Association of California v. Commissioner,......
-
National Muffler Dealers Association, Inc v. United States
...Held: Petitioner is not entitled to the tax exemption as a "business league" within the meaning of § 501(c)(6). Pp. 1306-1313. 2nd Cir., 565 F.2d 845, Myron P. Gordon, New York City, for petitioner. Stuart A. Smith, Washington, D. C., for respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opini......
-
ABA Ret. Funds v. United States
...some aspect of the general economic welfare" of the groups for which they are organized. See National Muffler Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 565 F.2d 845, 846 (2d Cir. 1977) aff'd, 440 U.S. 472 (1979) (explaining requirement that organizations be of the same general class as a chambe......