Slee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 16 June 1930 |
| Citation | 42 F.2d 184 |
| Parties | SLEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Newell W. Ellison, of Washington, D. C., and J. Harry Covington and Wm. Merrick Parker, both of Washington, D. C. (Covington, Burling & Rublee, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Joe S. Franklin, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for commissioner.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
During each of the years in question Slee, the petitioner, made gifts to the American Birth Control League, which he deducted from his income. The Commissioner, and later the Board, disallowed these, and the only question is whether section 214 (a) (11) (B) of the Internal Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 227), and section 214 (a) (10) of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 (26 USCA § 955 (a) (10), include the League. Those sections allow the deduction of gifts made to "any corporation * * * organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, including posts of the American Legion or * * * for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." The question is whether the League is organized for charitable, scientific or educational purposes, and, if so, whether those are its exclusive purposes.
It at first was an unincorporated association, but secured incorporation in New York in September, 1922, and its declared objects were as follows: To publish a magazine "in which shall be contained reports and studies of the relationship of controlled and uncontrolled procreation to national and world problems." In operation it has gone somewhat further than these projects. It maintains a "research department" in New York in charge of a physician, a medical, and a clinical, director. Large numbers of married women come to the clinic for advice, are examined, and if in the judgment of the physician their health demands but not otherwise, are told how to prevent conception. Unmarried women are not received. The officials keep elaborate records of the work, follow up the cases, and publish the results at large to the medical profession. At times patients are charged for the service, but the work as a whole goes on at a loss and has to be supported by gifts. The only part of its activities which can be thought to touch upon legislation is in directing persons how best to prepare proposals for changes in the law, and in distributing leaflets to legislators and others recommending such changes, chiefly by bringing before them such information as is supposed to "enlighten" their minds. These suggest and advocate a relaxation in existing restraints.
That the League is organized for charitable purposes seems to us clear, and the Board did not find otherwise. A free clinic, or one where only those pay who can, is a part of nearly every hospital, a recognized form of charitable venture. We can see no difference that this is confined to married women who ought not bear children both for their own, and the children's, sake. Health is as much at stake as though it attempted the general prevention of sickness. Nor does it matter that there are many who think the cure worse than the disease; there are people who object to venereal prophylaxis. It is enough that the object was to maintain health without profit by lawful means; that has been a recognized kind of charity from time immemorial. The collection and publication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cammarano v. United States Strauss Son, Inc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...of that sort must be conducted without public subvention; the Treasury stands aside from them.' Slee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 184, 185, 72 A.L.R. 400. The Regulations here contested appear to us to be but a further expression of the same sharply defined Petitione......
-
Taxation with Representation of Washington v. Regan
...by the Section 501(c)(3) organization, however, whether or not the lobbying is related to its exempt purpose. 6 See Slee v. Commissioner, 42 F.2d 184 (2d Cir. 1930). Section 501(c)(4) organizations, on the other hand, In contrast, other Section 501(c) organizations may receive tax-deductibl......
-
United States v. Harriss
...3 Cir., 122 F.2d 108; Leubuscher v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 998; Weyl v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 811; Slee v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 184. See also Annotation, 138 A.L.R. 14 For the three exceptions, see note 2, supra. 15 Under this construction, the Act is at least as def......
-
Hazen v. National Rifle Ass'n of America
...Leubuscher v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 998, 1000. Cf. Cochran v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 176. 13 See Slee v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 184, 72 A.L.R. 400 (American Birth Control League); State of Missouri v. Business Men's Athletic Club, 178 Mo. App. 548, 564, 565, 163 S.W. 9......
-
Nonprofit legislative speech: aligning policy, law, and reality.
...I.R.C. [section] 170(c). Id," I.R.C. [section] 170(c). (162) Galston, supra note 62, at 1270. (163) Houck, supra note 34, at 85. (164) 42 F.2d 184 (2d Cir. (165) Id. at 185. (166) Id.; see also Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 512 (1959) (agreeing with Hand). (167) Chisolm, supra n......
-
Nonprofits and Civic Engagement
...explicitly called for trying to persuade legislatorsto change laws on birth control. This landmark decision,Slee v. Commissioner (42 F.2d 184 [2d Cir. 1930]), saidsimply that “agitating for the repeal of laws” could not besupported by taxpayer funds.A few years later, in 1934, Congress took......