1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references

(continued...)

T.C. Memo. 2005-30

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

AMEND16ROBERTWIRENGARD, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 18437-03X. Filed February 22, 2005.

R.O. Wirengard (an officer), for petitioner.

Helen F. Rogers, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WELLS, Judge: In a final adverse determination letter,

respondent determined that petitioner did not qualify for

exemption from Federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(a)

as an organization described in section 501(c)(3).1 Having
- 2 -

1(...continued)

are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

exhausted its administrative remedies, petitioner challenged

respondent’s determination by timely filing a petition for a

declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7428(a). The

administrative record was submitted to the Court by joint motion

pursuant to Rules 122 and 217(b). For purposes of the instant

proceeding, the facts and representations contained in the

administrative record are accepted as true and are incorporated

herein by reference. The sole issue to be decided is whether

petitioner qualifies for tax exemption as an organization

described in section 501(c)(3).

Background

On or about August 16, 2001, petitioner filed a Form 1023,

Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3)

of the Internal Revenue Code (Form 1023). In its Form 1023,

petitioner reported that it was organized as an association and

that it had an address in Hillsborough County, Florida. 

In the Form 1023, petitioner reported that it was a school. 

Petitioner’s Web site described petitioner as a “free school”

whereby education is provided via the Internet on how to obtain a

microloan; how to establish an IRA; how to obtain health care;

and how to “think about reality or other religions”. An article

on petitioner’s Web site entitled “Article of an Unincorporated,
- 3 -

2The record shows that petitioner submitted to respondent

drafts of its articles of association on three separate

occasions. Each of the three drafts was dated Aug. 31, 2001. 

The first draft was signed only by Robert Wirengard and submitted

as an attachment to petitioner’s Form 1023. The second draft,

set forth above, was identical to the first, except that it was

signed by all four directors and was submitted by petitioner as

an attachment to a letter to respondent dated Oct. 9, 2001. The

third draft was not identical to the first two drafts but was

substantially similar; it was signed by Robert Wirengard and

Mauricio Rosas and submitted by petitioner as an attachment to a

letter to respondent dated Apr. 3, 2003. The signature of

Mauricio Rosas was dated Apr. 3, 2003.

Non-Profit Individual Organization” stated that the purpose of

the organization is “to educate as many people as possible about

the existing Amendment 16 of the Constitution of the United

States of America, its fundamental flaws that are contrary to the

views of our founding fathers and ways to correct these.”

Along with its Form 1023, petitioner submitted articles of

association2 (hereinafter referred to as the Articles). The

Articles provided:

ARTICLE III

PURPOSES

Amend16robertwirengard is not for profit and organized

exclusively for educational, welfare and charitable

purposes, including to:

1. Provide education and advocacy, principally of the

economic and financial sciences

2. Provide for food, shelter, healthcare, 

access/transportation and environments

3. Study, research and test welfare, healthcare and 

environmental models

4. Identify socio-economic and sustainability 

problems and provide economic solutions

5. Assist and organize employees and unemployed and 

unpaid workers for their and children’s welfare
- 4 -

6. Study, assist and organize economic welfare 

arrangements and alliances for and/or with other 

community concerns, including employee, employer, 

government, faith based, corporate, other business

and environmental entities

7. Publish economic mechanisms and applications based

on Nobel Laureate types of economic and financial 

theories; as well, publish test conclusions of 

models built, be they successful or failures (and 

how they may be amended or corrected to build a 

sustainable universe)

* * * * * * *

ARTICLE VI

BY-LAWS

Provisions for the regulations of the internal affairs

of Amend16robertwirengard are to be determined and set

forth in the By-Laws. The Board of

Amend16robertwirengard shall adopt the original ByLaws. Thereafter, By-Laws may be adopted, amended or

repealed by the Board of Directors in accordance with

the By-Laws. Any decision before the board must be

concluded with unanimous vote, in favor or against.

* * * * * * *

ARTICLE VIII

OVERSEERS

The number of Directors of Amend16robertwirengard shall

be three, or more than three, as fixed from time to

time by the By-Laws of Amend16robertwirengard. The

number of Directors constituting the initial Board of

Directors is four, and the names and addresses of the

persons who are to serve as directors or overseers

until their successors are elected or otherwise

appointed and shall qualify are:

Robert Wirengard

6234 Falkenburg Road North

Fair Share, FL 33610-9491

(Note, “Fair Share” is not within Tampa city limits, is

in an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County, and 
- 5 -

our post office, approving the name so long as the

correct zip code is used, delivers to our Fair Share

address).

Mauricio Rosas

P.O. Box 7641

Tampa, FL 33673

John Larsen

532 De Resine Carre

Seffner, FL 33532

Tom Hoyt

611 De Resine Carre

Seffner, FL 33584

* * * * * * *

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed these Articles of

Amend16robertwirengard in duplicate this 31st day of

August 2001, and say that I know the contents thereof

and am liable for the entity, both economically and

financially, and to the letter and in the spirit of

governing laws.

(Signed ROWirengard)

Robert Wirengard, FOUNDER, PRINCIPAL AND AGENT

Mauricio Rosas, Board of Directors

(Signed Mauricio Rosas)

Thomas Hoyt, Board of Directors

(Signed Thomas Hoyt)

John Larsen, Board of Directors

(Signed John Larsen)

Petitioner subsequently submitted to respondent a

document entitled “Agreement to Amend” (hereinafter referred

to as the Agreement) in which petitioner agreed to “enact”

the following amendment to the Articles:
- 6 -

a. The organization is organized exclusively for 

charitable, religious, educational, and/or 

scientific purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the

Internal Revenue Code.

b. No part of the net earnings of the organization 

shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable

to, its members, trustees, officers or other 

private persons, except that the organization 

shall be authorized and empowered to pay 

reasonable compensation for services rendered and 

to make payments and distributions in furtherance 

of the purposes set forth in the purpose clause 

hereof. No substantial part of the activities of 

the organization shall be the carrying on of 

propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence 

legislation, and the organization shall not 

participate in, or intervene in (including the 

publishing or distribution of statements) any 

political campaign on behalf of any candidate for 

public office. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this document, the organization shall

not carry on any other activities not permitted to

be carried on (a) by an organization exempt from 

federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of

any future federal tax code, or (b) by an 

organization, contributions to which are 

deductible under section 170(c)(2) of the Internal

Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any 

future federal tax code.

c. The organization will not discriminate based on 

gender, race, religion, disability, or ethnic or 

national origin.

The Agreement stated that the amendment would be adopted in

accordance with petitioner’s internal rules of operation. Robert

Wirengard alone signed the Agreement; the Agreement was not

signed by all directors as required by Article VI of the

Articles.
- 7 -

 As an attachment to a letter dated June 20, 2002,

petitioner submitted to respondent a document entitled “By-Laws

of Amend16robertwirengard (Under Review)” (hereinafter referred

to as the Bylaws). The Bylaws provided:

Article I: Name

Sec. 1. The name of this organization shall be

Amend16robertwirengard, with its divisions and

wholeness through the Circle of Life Ministry, United

Health Payers, United Arrangements, United Affiliations

and, United Bank, severally and jointly

Of Amend16robertwirengard

We are an integral part of our local community,

Hillsborough County, Florida, and the United States of

America and our greater community, all territories,

nations, our Earth and our Universe.

Article II: Purpose and Policy

Sec. 1. Purpose. To teach about, apply and treat each

as each would be treated.

* * * * * * *

Article IX: Programs/Divisions

Sec. 1. Authorization. The Principles of “treating

each as each would be” and freedom to choose, without

dictate, threat or coercion, adopted by us as a whole,

constitute the authorization for the adoption of

Programs.

Sec. 2. Programs. The programs shall consist of those

issues chosen for concerted study and action.

Sec. 3. Current Agenda and Continuing Responsibilities.

These categories of programs are defined as follows:

a. The Current Agenda focuses on universal, market

priced healthcare, the absence of which in the United

States, involves a million people in medical mishaps,

including losses of lives, and a half million personal

bankruptcies (impoverishments) annually, involving

healthcare debts. The healthcare issue is eminent as a

national issue and in local governmental issues limited

to indigent care through a general sales tax.

b. The Continuing Responsibilities shall consist of

working with local government staff in its objective to

co-pilot universal, market priced healthcare, currently 
- 8 -

having established a Health Insurance Study Work Group

relative to this.

c. The long term agenda, of which healthcare represent

close to a third, is the elimination of poverty and

war, or, put positively, having world wide peace

(unfair activity, violence and terrorism being

preempted by treating each as each would be: that each

should have needs met and work and trade freely for

more than what the needs of sustenance are).

Article I, section 1, of the Bylaws provides that petitioner

is organized into five divisions: (1) Circle of Life Ministry;

(2) United Health Payers; (3) United Arrangements; (4) United

Affiliations; and (5) United Bank. Petitioner’s Web site

provided the following description of the five divisions:

For welfare purposes and what may be described as

scientific and experimental models, practical

applications and/or assistance programs, divisions of

Amend16robertwirengard exist. These, similar to

colleges within a university, are:

United Arrangements of Amend16robertwirengard -

educational, practical and real welfare application

purposes and assuring compliance with the Multi

Employer Welfare Arrangement of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act, passed by the U.S. Congress and

under the U.S. Department of Labor. This school may

remain in perpetuity until the end of poverty and

systematic impoverishment.

United Health Payers of Amend16robertwirengard (Mary

Lasano, nurse and consultant) - experimental model for

market-priced, universal healthcare in a non-socialist

society. Once the success that is envisioned is

accomplished, it is expected that this one-payer system

will be bought out at future cost to become an

efficient one-payer system established as a Government

Sponsored Entity (much as the U.S. Federal Reserve

system currently is a GSE).

United Bank of Amend16robertwirengard (DeVara Sims,

Tampa Police Dept./reach out, consultant and trustee) -

a non-profit banking facility for people and businesses
- 9 -

to learn about and apply banking products and services;

establish IRA’s, pooling of funds, also for other

financial services such as electronic payroll

depositing for small firms, including, possibly, for

our no-profit United Health Payers deposits, accruals,

and disbursements, or employees being able to pull

partial cash funds from payrolls of their employers for

a day’s work, as well as store year to date information

on wages, tax withholdings and benefit costs; micro

loans to persons and small businesses, mainly for work

or volunteer initiatives. $8,000 already has been

donated for this endeavor.

Circle of Life Ministry of Amend16robertwirengard

(Merry Wiesenborn, director, volunteer, trustee) -

provides food and shelter for needy; transportation;

financial assistance for single mothers, particularly

those who have experienced violent, physical abuse

[cash assistance for food, shelter and education plus

transportation needs, exceeds $5,000, plus $12,000 in

loaner vehicle assets are tied up]; potential center

specifically for working with youth involving hate

crime; religious* studies, discussions and advocacy as

regards religions of Wiesenborn’s Circle of Life

Ministry and realism as opposed to or inclusive of

faiths in a deity or deities (possibly of the more

modern government preferred religions, such as of

Judeo-Christianity or Islam, etc.) Its doctrines are

based on the natural earth and universe, spirit of

people, “big boom” theory, treating others as one wants

to be treated, amending where we are wrong, repairing

where we have hurt, and civil and consensual activities

as opposed to systematic corruption that can stem from

the concentration of power in governments or from

individual violent abuses (often the physical power of

a man over a woman, rather than logic and

reasonability; or the difficult challenge of teaching

children without expeditiously inflicting pain that

causes long term and deep problems).

* * * * * * *
- 10 -

3United Alliances of Amend16robertwirengard is presumably

the same division designated in the Bylaws as United

Affiliations.

United Alliances of Amend16robertwirengard3 (Mauricio

Rosas, independent citizen, activist, and trustee) -

advocacy and reach out program to join in common

grounds with other businesses, government, schools and

universities, community concerned (including those

concerned with global healthcare, environmental issues

and community sustainability, from local “Tomorrow

Matters”, League of Women Voters, Independent Citizens,

ACLU, Results!, Amnesty International, Planned

Parenthood to the Federal Reserve Bank of the U.S and

other central banks, United Nations, International

Monetary Fund and World Bank), and faith based

organizations.

In a letter to respondent dated November 30, 2001,

petitioner described the organization as a university “based on

theory”, whereas the five divisions are “subordinate colleges,

arranged to complete the fundamentals of a <micro-society’ (a

<laboratory’ and teaching facility)”. The letter described the

separate functions of the divisions as follows:

United Bank * * * deals with monetary aspects in our

“mirco-society” and is about how to go about setting

up, providing and receiving microloans, individuals

learning and doing so (some $8,000 in cash and loan

receivables having been donated by Robert Wirengard to

United Bank and one microloan having been established

with arm’s distance controls - authorization by the

director); United Arrangements, is the legal avenue, as

a Multi Employer Welfare Arrangement under ERISA,

allowing us to work independently of regulations that

regulate private sector welfare agents such as

healthcare insurance firms (for example, as a MEWA, we

are not required to be licensed insurance

representatives nor to have cash reserves committed for

coverage) it allows us, people, as individuals and

private sector firms, for example, to work together to

arrange for “affordable” health care, something
- 11 -

4Robert Wirengard proposed that government pay the costs of

healthcare services for individuals to the extent of the average

costs for such services. 

considered to be a welfare arrangement for employees

and their family, our community; United Affiliations,

is the legal channel that will allow our actual “reachout” to involve all community members - from both

private and government sectors, as well as all ranges

of persons or associations within each - and for us to

work together as individuals or groups for common

goals, for example, or for affordable healthcare (a

learning and application process, to the benefit of

everyone); and Circle of Life Ministry, about getting

food, shelter and healthcare for each other (again to

the community’s welfare, and while dealing with the

common notions of conscience or faith based charity).

The letter distinguished petitioner from founder and board member

Robert Wirengard, who “petitioned and lobbied” Federal and State

Government officials and, in December of 2000, presented a

healthcare model to the Health Care Advisory Board of

Hillsborough County.4

In a letter dated October 20, 2003, respondent issued a

final adverse ruling with respect to petitioner’s claim for

exemption. Respondent based the ruling on his determination that

petitioner failed to establish that: (1) Petitioner was organized

exclusively for exempt purposes; (2) petitioner was operated

exclusively for exempt purposes; (3) petitioner’s net earnings

will not inure to the benefit of private individuals or serve

private interests; and (4) petitioner was not an “action”

organization within the meaning of section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3),

Income Tax Regs.
- 12 -

5SEC. 501(a). Exemption from Taxation.--An organization

described in subsection (c) * * * shall be exempt from taxation 

* * *.

6SEC. 501(c). List of Exempt Organizations.--The following

organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

* * * * * * *

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or

foundation, organized and operated exclusively for

religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public

safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster

national or international amateur sports competition (but

only if no part of its activities involve the provision of

athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of

cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings

of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or

individual, no substantial part of the activities of which

is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to

influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in

subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or

(continued...)

Discussion

Section 501(a) exempts from Federal taxation organizations

described in section 501(c)(3).5 To qualify as an organization

described in section 501(c)(3), an organization must satisfy each

of the following four requirements: (1) It must be organized and

operated exclusively for certain specified exempt purposes; (2)

no part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of a private

shareholder or individual; (3) no part of its activities may

constitute intervention or participation in any political

campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; and (4) no

substantial part of its activities may consist of political or

lobbying activities.6 See sec. 501(c)(3); Fla. Hosp. Trust Fund
- 13 -

6(...continued)

intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of

statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in

opposition to) any candidate for public office.

v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 140, 145 (1994), affd. 71 F.3d 808

(11th Cir. 1996); Am. Campaign Acad. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.

1053, 1062 (1989); IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2001-246, affd. 325 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). Section

501(c)(3) provides for the following exempt purposes: Religious,

charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary,

educational, and prevention of cruelty to children or animals. 

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

It is well established that our inquiry focuses on the

reasons given by the Commissioner for denying an organization’s

application for exemption. See Aid to Artisans, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 71 T.C. 202, 208 (1978). Thus, in making our

declaration, we do not engage in a de novo review of the

administrative record. See Am. Campaign Acad. v. Commissioner,

supra at 1063; Church in Boston v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 102,

105-106 (1978); Houston Lawyer Referral Serv., Inc. v.

Commissioner, 69 T.C. 570, 573-574, 577 (1978). 

The first of the section 501(c)(3) requirements mandates

that an organization be organized exclusively for one or more of

the exempt purposes. The exempt purposes requirement is met only

if the organization satisfies the organizational as well as the
- 14 -

operational test. See sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. 

The organizational test is set forth in section 1.501(c)(3)-

1(b)(1)(i):

(i) An organization is organized exclusively for

one or more exempt purposes only if its articles of

organization * * * as defined in subparagraph (2) of

this paragraph:

(a) Limit the purposes of such organization

to one or more exempt purposes; and

(b) Do not expressly empower the organization

to engage, otherwise than as an insubstantial part

of its activities, in activities which in

themselves are not in furtherance of one or more

exempt purposes.[1]

[1]The term “articles of organization” includes an

organization’s articles of association. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-

1(b)(2), Income Tax Regs. 

Furthermore, to satisfy the organizational test, an organization

must serve a public rather than a private interest. See sec.

1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs; Columbia Park &

Recreation Association, Inc. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1, 13

(1987), affd. without published opinion 838 F.2d 465 (4th Cir.

1988); Retired Teachers Legal Fund, Inc. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.

280, 286 (1982); Baltimore Regl. Joint Bd. Health & Welfare Fund

v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 554 (1978). 

Even if an organization’s articles of organization set forth

purposes no broader than those specified in section 501(c)(3),

the organization is not organized exclusively for exempt purposes

if such articles expressly empower it to carry on (other than as
- 15 -

7The enumerated activities include providing “education and

advocacy, principally, of the economic and financial sciences”;

providing healthcare and transportation; testing “welfare,

healthcare and environmental models”; providing economic

solutions to identified “socio-economic and sustainability”

problems; assisting and organizing employees; and organizing

economic welfare arrangements. 

an insubstantial part of its activities) activities not in

furtherance of one or more exempt purposes. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-

1(b)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs. 

In the instant case, the enumerated activities set forth in

Article III of the Articles are broad in scope and vague in

description.7 For instance, the Articles empower petitioner to

provide economic solutions to identified socioeconomic problems. 

Such activities do not necessarily further an educational or

charitable purpose regardless of the fact that the Articles state

that petitioner is organized “exclusively for educational,

welfare and charitable purposes.” See id. This Court has held,

however, that the mere existence of power to engage in activities

other than those set out in section 501(c)(3) does not in itself

prevent an organization from meeting the organizational test. 

Peoples Translation Serv./Newsfront Intl. v. Commissioner, 72

T.C. 42, 48 (1979). A determination of whether an organization

is organized exclusively for exempt purposes is based on an

examination not only of the articles of organization but also of

other evidence in the administrative record. See Peoples

Translation Ser./Newsfront Intl. v. Commissioner, supra; Gen.
- 16 -

Conference of the Free Church of Am. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.

920, 927 (1979); Levy Family Tribe Found., Inc. v. Commissioner,

69 T.C. 615, 619 (1978). Consequently, an examination of the

administrative record in the instant case for evidence that the

enumerated activities of the Articles will further an exempt

purpose is appropriate.

We understand petitioner’s contention to be that it is a

school organized to disseminate theory to the public at-large via

petitioner’s Web site and to engage in the practical application

of such theory through its five divisions. Petitioner includes

banking activities among such practical applications. 

As noted above, the Articles expressly empower petitioner to

identify socioeconomic problems and provide economic solutions. 

Article I of the Bylaws establishes United Bank as one of

petitioner’s five organizational divisions but does not further

describe the organization or operations of United Bank. 

Petitioner’s Web site stated that United Bank of

Amend16robertwirengard would provide banking products and

services to individuals and businesses. According to the Web

site, such services include establishing IRAs, pooling funds,

electronic payroll deposits for small firms and possibly for

United Health Payers, accruals, disbursements, and providing

micro loans. In its letter of June 20, 2002, petitioner stated

that United Bank is primarily distinguished from commercial banks
- 17 -

in that United Bank is neither incorporated nor a member of the

FDIC. Rather, Robert Wirengard assumes all liability related to

United Bank. Petitioner stated that loans were to be “of microlevel (small) nature to help <small’ people economically to get

on their feet”. Petitioner provided respondent with a sample

microloan note, which imposed a 6-percent interest charge. 

According to petitioner, as of June 20, 2002, United Bank had

made a single loan, which resulted in default.

Respondent contends that United Bank does not further any

exempt purpose. Petitioner contends that United Bank would help

the poor by extending microloans and contends generally that

petitioner lacks a profit motive.

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that,

through United Bank of Amend16robertwirengard, petitioner is

empowered to engage in activities not in furtherance of an exempt

purpose. The record reveals that United Bank would carry on the

activities of a commercial bank, such as extending personal and

commercial loans for a stated interest. Petitioner’s stated

purpose of extending loans to low-income individuals and small

businesses, petitioner’s lack of profit-motive, and United Bank’s

lack of FDIC insurance do not establish that the commercial

banking activities of United Bank would further an exempt

purpose. The activities of United Bank would constitute a

substantial part of the activities of Amend16robertwirengard. 
- 18 -

Based on the foregoing, petitioner does not satisfy the

organizational test of section 1.501(c)(3)-1(b)(1)(i), Income Tax

Regs., and is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt

purposes as required by section 501(c)(3). Consequently,

petitioner is not entitled to the declaratory judgment it seeks. 

We need not address respondent’s contentions that petitioner was

not operated exclusively for exempt purposes, that petitioner’s

net earnings will inure to the benefit of private individuals or

serve private interests, and that petitioner is an action

organization within the meaning of section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3),

Income Tax Regs. 

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered for

respondent.