1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times. All

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

(continued...)

T.C. Memo. 2010-13

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

MYSTERYBOY INCORPORATION, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 21011-08X. Filed January 26, 2010.

Eddie C. Risdal (Director), for petitioner.

William I. Miller, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined that Mysteryboy

Incorporation is not exempt from Federal income tax (tax) under

section 501(a)1 because it is not an organization described in
- 2 -

1(...continued)

Procedure.

section 501(c)(3). After having exhausted its administrative

remedies, petitioner challenged that determination by timely

seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7428(a). The

parties submitted this case under Rule 122 on the basis of the

stipulated administrative record (administrative record). For

purposes of this proceeding, the facts and representations

contained in the administrative record are accepted as true, see

Rule 217(b), and are incorporated herein. 

We must decide whether petitioner is exempt from tax under

section 501(a) because it is an organization described in section

501(c)(3). We hold that petitioner is not exempt from tax under

section 501(a) because it is not an organization described in

section 501(c)(3). 

Background

At the time petitioner filed the petition, its address was

in Iowa. 

On January 8, 1991, Eddie C. Risdal (Mr. Risdal) incorporated petitioner under the Iowa Nonprofit Corporation Act,

chapter 504A of the Code of Iowa as then in effect. At all

relevant times, Mr. Risdal was, and will continue to be, the sole

director, the sole officer, the sole employee, and the executive

director of petitioner. 
- 3 -

2All quotations herein from various documents that Mr.

Risdal prepared on behalf of petitioner and that are part of the

administrative record are reproduced literally.

Petitioner’s articles of incorporation state in pertinent

part:2

The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is

organized is/are: charitable. working for law change

to protect the rights of sexual active consenting kids

and adults; and to amend child sexual photography law;

to provide counseling to sexual active kids & adults;

and scientific studys; educational, & artistic

Petitioner’s bylaws provide in pertinent part:

NO LATER THEN YEAR 2006 A MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WILL BE

EXECUTED. ALL MEMBERS WILL PAY A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT

PERPETUALLY OR/AND IF PREFERED PAY A LIFE TIME MEMBERSHIP FEE OF A SET REASONABLE AMOUNT. 

(A)= MEMBERS WILL BE INVITED TOO A PERPETUALL MEETING

ON FUTURE BUSINESS PLANNINGS AND WILL HAVE A VOTING

POWER ON PRESENT & NEW PROGRAM IDEAS TO BENEFIT SOCIETY

AT LARGE, PLUES A FREE COOK-OUT DINNER WITH DRINKS WILL

BE PROVIDED FOR ALL MEMBERS & DIRECTOR FROM THE INCORPORATION.

(B)= MEMBERS WILL RECEIVE TWICE OR MORE PERPETUALLY THE

INCORPORATIONS NEWS LETTER THAT INFORMS MEMBERS OF WHAT

THE INCORPORATIONS BEEN DOING SENSE THE LAST NEW LETTERS, ALSO MEMBERS WILL BE INCOURAGED TO WRITE THEIR

POINTS OF VIEWS OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL ARTICLES IN THE

SAID NEWSLETTER, ALSO SAID NEWS LETTER AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TOO THE GENERAL

PUBLIC AND POLITICIONS PRO BONO OR AT MINIMUN COSTS.

(C)= NO MEMBER WILL HAVE THE VOTING POWER TO REMOVE THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UNLESS SAID DIRECTOR IS FOUND GUILTY

IN A COURT OF LAW OF A FELONY OF MIS-USING THE

INCORPORATIONS FUNDS FOR HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL GAIN.

(D)= IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ALL MEMBERS SHALL BE NOTIFIED WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND

MEMBERS SHALL HOLD A SPECIAL VOTING TO ELECT A NEW

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO WILL CONTINUALLY TOO HONORALLY
- 4 -

CARRY-OUT THE GOALS OF THE INCORPORATION PERPETUALLY

EVER AFTER, AND IN EVENT OF THIS SAID DIRECTOR FOR THE

SAME RULES WILL APPLY IN VOTING-IN A NEW DIRECTOR.

(E)= THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS TO HAVE OVER TEN YEARS

OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY & RESEARCH INTO HUMAN SEXUALITY,

PSYCHOSEXUALITY, CRIMINOLOGY, MYSTICS, NO COLLEGE

DEGREES ARE REQUIRED BUT NATURAL EXPERIENCES ARE REQUIRED. SAID DIRECTOR SHALL BE OPEN MINDED TO EVERY

FORM OF HUMAN SEXUALL IDENTIES & PREFERENCES AND SHALL

NOT DISCRIMINATE TO ANY ADULT OR CHILD, AND SAID DIRECTOR & MEMBERS INCLUDED SHALL ASSIST ANY NON MEMBER OR

EVEN MEMBER WHO MAY BE IN NEED OF COUNSELING, OR IN

NEED OF ANY OTHER FORM OF ASSISTENCE AS A LAST RESORT

TO SAFE GUARD THEIR LIFE, SAID MEMBERS SHALL REPORT

THEM TO THE INCOPORATIONS OFFICE IMMEDITALLY SO THAT

THE INCORPORATION CAN CONSIDER ASSISTING THEM IN ANY

WAY POSIBLE WITHIN THE INCORPORATIONS GOAL CARRYING-OUT

PROGRAMS.

(F) MENBERS SHALL NOT PROMOOT, BUT WILL NOT DENY THE

FACT OF PAST & PRESENT HUMAN HISTORY THAT HUMANKIND

FROM YOUTH ON-THROUGH ADULTHOOD HAS IN MAJORITY BEEN

SEXUAL ACTIVE WHETHER BE IN PROMISIOUS, DEVENTCY, OR

EXPERIMENTATION SEXUAL ACTS, AND MENBERS WILL PROMOOT

SAFE SEX EDUCATION AND SAY NO TO ILLEGAL DRUGS USES

UNTIL THE EVENT THAT THEY BECOME LEGALIZED, MENBERS

WILL PROMOOT FEED THE HUNGARY, SUEICIDE PREVENTION AND

ANY AMENDED PROGRAMS AS THE INCORPORATION FINDS SUCH A

PUBLIC NEED TO ADD SUCH PROGRAMS THAT WILL BENEFIT

SOCIETY AT LARGE. NO MENBER SHALL PROMOOT ANY KIND OR

FORM OF LAWS OR ADVOCACY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION WHOS

GOALS PROMOOT OF INFLUENCE HATERAID OR/AND VIOLENCE.

(G)= MEMBERS SHALL SUPPORT THE INCORPORATION AT ALL

TIMES IN ITS ADVOCACY AND GOAL CARRING-OUT, AND MENBERS

SHALL ALWAYS RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO DISAGREE OR BRING

NEW EDUCATIONAL IDEAS & PROGRAMS INTO EXSISTENCE AND IN

NO WAY BE PUNISHED FOR THEIROWN PERSONAL IDEAS & VIEWS.

* * * * * * *

(I)= THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHALL ACT AS OFFICER,

TREASURER UNTIL AT SUCH A TIME A NEED ARAISES TOO

APPOINT OFFICERS & A TREASURE, OR AT A TIME WHEN THE

INCORPORATIONS FUNDS ON HAND EXCEED FIVE MILLION

DALLORS.
- 5 -

* * * * * * *

(L)= THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,

TREASURE AND ALL MEMBERS SHALL AT ALL TIMES PROMOOT

EDUCATIONAL NUDIST CAMPS & ORGANIZATIONS FAMILY OR

SINGLE NUDISTS, AND THAT IN ACTS OF HARMLESS CONSENSUAL

SEX THAT ABSTANCE IS THE SAFEST WAY BUT THAT SEXUAL

EXPERIMENTATION IS A NATURAL ACT AND SAFE-SEX IS A

MUST, MEMBERS WILL ALSO PROMOOT THE ARTISTIC USE OF

HUMAN NUDITY YOUNG AND OLD, PLUES PROMOOT ALL OTHER OF

THE INCORPORATIONS PROGRAMS MEMSIONED SO FAR IN THESE

BY-LAWS AT HAND.

(M)= THE INCORPORATION SHALL HAVE A PRESS TO PUBLISH

ITS EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC, ARTISTIC AND POLITICAL

MATERIALS, PLUES RELATED ITEMS TO DO WITH A PRESS

BUSINESS AND THIS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED SOON AS FUNDS

PRESENT THEMSELVES AND UNTIL THAT TIME THE INCORPORATION WILL USE OTHER MEANS TO PUBLISH ITS MATERIALS.

(N)= THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE IN

EXECUTING SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & RESEARCH FOR USE IN

CARRING-OUT THE INCORPORATIONS GOALS AND AS NEED BE THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAN EMPLOY ASSISTANCES IN CARRING-

)OUT THOES GOALS. 

Around July 17, 2006, petitioner submitted to respondent

Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (Form 1023), which Mr.

Risdal signed as petitioner’s executive director. In an attachment to Form 1023, petitioner described its activities in pertinent part as follows:

To executive scientific study and research into the

pros and cons of decriminalizing natural consensual

sexual behaviors between adults and underagers and

decriminalizing what is defined as child pornography. 

Such research and studies will consist from secondary

anaalysis a research method in which a researcher uses

data collected by others, also research and study will

be recorded from oral visitation and observation of

consenting participants, ALSO such studies and research

will include trips of travel world-wide and will be
- 6 -

executed by myself or by paid part-time employees or by

volunteers. Such study and research will also look

into the relationship of forced abstinence and why it

produces hateraid and violense in a majority of cases. 

Such findings or conclusive facts will be converted

into an educational material form and will be distributed to the general public and legislatures for

tconsideration for use in law reforming/repeals/ decriminalization/or for use in making new law bills.

Secondary programs will promoot safe sex; promoot

friendship/peace and love undiscriminally world-wide;

another program will advocate suicide preventions;

another program will use any surplues funds to provide

food in life or death situations to the hungary worldwide; Another program provides mentoring to any aged

person whom either asks for mentoring or whom I feel is

consenting to my mentoring and may better their need

from it;Another program will advocate anti-illegal

drugs. Overall Mysteryboy Incorporations research and

studies will show and tell the facts of how human-kind

have naturally experimented in sexual behaviors with

one-another and-with-other creatures or and material

objects sense the beginning of time, Mysteeryboy incorporation (MBI) will in the futurer host a show and tell

room of artifacts displaying nudity/sexual

behaviors/etc. in statue or and in historic replicas

staue and painting forms and in posible preserved

cadaverous nude poses with educational material attachments. Evidence of today factually shows a sharp

increase in adult and underagers hateraided and

violense as result of bills being made into law or by

the strenghentened old sexual behavior and pornograpphy

laws reforms that fruited from the policical haste from

the 1980tys Ronald Reagan Administration’s appointed

Meese commission as a ouick-fix to remedy a small

percentage of unconsenting human sexual behaviors that

fruited a few victoms.While those well intended laws

remedied a small percentage of those sex abuse cases

those laws went-on to perpetually to victomize the

general public at the larger percentage and today yet

no one to my knowledge realizes the harms these

precieved to be ex post facto laws have done and continue to do to society at large and its justice system

that is nagativally effecting the UNITED STATES reputation and creditability country-wide. AS A CLAIRVOYANT

I HAVE THE GOD AND MOTHER_NATURES GIFT OF THE FUTURE 
- 7 -

INSIGHT TO A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT COULD EVENTUALLY HARM

THE UNITED STATES BEYOND REPAIR IF LEFT UNINTENDED. 

In Form 1023, Mr. Risdal described his qualifications to be

petitioner’s executive director as follows: 

OUALIFICATIONS==Life-long Bisexual identy. Creditable,

on former seasonal employment jobs I held management

positions.From 1976 till November 1985 I owned & operated myown profitable salage yard business with some

ten PART_TIME EMPLOYEES. College diplomaed in graphic

arts and theology and ordained minister.I am

presentally continuing my college rducation as a full

time student working to a degree in psychology and

social science. I already oualified as a natural

scientist by my unioue life-long study and research as

an outgoing active bisexual who has been there done

that with all the differing sexual identified sexed

humans.formarally a boy scout and little leage baseball

player. Life-long Iowa U.S.A. citizen.Mentored adults

and juvenile delinkouents for some 40ty years on-going

today.Legally operated and founded MBI, a disadvantaged

organization because of lack of funds and because I was

imprisoned from November 1985 through 2005 as a first

time felone on two counts of sex abuse (Its District

court documented on trial transcripts where the alleged

two teenaged male victoms testified under oath they

were not victoms and Eddie Risdal did not harm them on

the alleged two sexual behavior acts they consented to,

and they stated the hate-monger 300 some pound deputy

sheriff coercored them into perjury against E.Risdal by

putting his gun to their heads with death threats; the

prosecutor aggreed with the victoms testimoinie but

denyed any wrong doing by the deputy sheriff. Officials fabricated those two criminal charges in retaliation for E.Risdals’ former criminal whistle-blowings

against that local sheriff, his deputies and prosecutor, also E.RISDAL HAD A PENDING CIVIL SUIT FILED IN

THE U.S.District court that was nearing its docketed

jury trial date in December 1985, and because all law

enforcers preknew that sex offender crimes, regardless

of innocense or guilt is the easyest crime to obtain a

conviction on is why the civil suit defendants retaliated with the sex charges unstood of fabricating a

different type of crime. 
- 8 -

Petitioner responded in the affirmative to the following

question 8a in Part V of Form 1023: “Do you or will you have any

leases, contracts, loans, or other agreements with your officers,

directors * * *?” As a result of petitioner’s answer to that

question, petitioner was required to provide additional information in Form 1023, including a description of any written or oral

arrangements that petitioner had made or intended to make and the

identity of the persons with whom petitioner had made or intended

to make any such arrangements. In this regard, petitioner

stated:

Any oral or written arrangements that I may make will

be documented in MBI’S log book that is open to public

inspection during MBI’s business hours. I have logged

past written oral arrangements in MBI’S logbook.

* * * There exsists only one such oral written arrangement and it concerns soft and hard back books I purchased for MBIs’ research & study purposes that become

the property of MBI’s library, and in that aggreement,

MBI will compensate me for the exact value I paid out

of myown pocket for those books in the event MBI receives a donation or grant to purchase books for its

library and if MBI never receives such funds those

books will forever remain the property of MBI’s library. 

Petitioner indicated in response to question 1a in Part VI

of Form 1023 that, in carrying out its exempt purposes, it

provided or intended to provide goods, services, or funds to

individuals. However, petitioner did not, as required by Form

1023, “describe each program that provides [or will provide]

goods, services, or funds to individuals.” 
- 9 -

3Petitioner indicated in response to question 2b in Part

VIII of Form 1023 that it did not intend to make an election

under sec. 501(h) to have its legislative activities measured by

expenditures by filing Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election

by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization To Make

Expenditures To Influence Legislation. 

Question 2a in Part VIII of Form 1023 asked petitioner: “Do

you attempt to influence legislation? If ‘Yes,’ explain how you

attempt to influence legislation”. Although petitioner responded

in the affirmative to that question, it did not explain how it

attempted, or intended to attempt, to influence legislation.3

Petitioner indicated in Form 1023 that it intended to

undertake fundraising but that it did not intend to do so “until

after MBI is LEGALLY reconized from IRS AS A tax exempt charitable organization”. 

Petitioner responded in the affirmative to the following

question 10 in Part VIII of Form 1023: “Do you or will you

publish, own, or have rights in music, literature, tapes,

artworks, choreography, scientific discoveries, or other intellectual property?” In explaining that answer, petitioner stated: 

MBI IN THE near future plans to purchase a few artistic

historic statue arts from a licensed dealer for display

in MBI’s show room. MBI will publish ITS OWN EDUCATIONAL BOOKS AND ARTWORKS THAT WILL BE COPY RIGHTED.MBI

WILL PURCHASE OTHER ARTWORKS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HOLD THE

COPYRIGHTS TO AND MBI WILL INCLUDE THEM IN ITS SHOW AND

TELL ROOM.No admission fee will be charged for access

to MBIs’ show room and MBIs’ copyrighted books will be

given away free as a fund raising tool to carryout

MBIs’ programs. E.C.RISDAL is a practicing free-lance

writter and artist. 
- 10 -

Petitioner responded in the affirmative to the following

question 12a in Part VIII of Form 1023: “Do you or will you

operate in a foreign country or countries?” In explaining that

answer, petitioner stated:

At this date no country is knowen as to where MBI may

operate or if MBI will ever be financially able to

operate in any foreign country to help in feeding the

hungary, or to execute scientific study and research

into its citizens sexual behaviors and governing laws

pros and cons, and to promoot friendship/love and

peace. 

In describing how petitioner would operate in a foreign country,

petitioner stated:

Such collected information will be used in MBIs’ educational advocacy and advocacy promooting friendship/love

and peace will benefit all of the worlds human population from detering warfare, and by supplying foods and

water to starving people is highly charitable. 

Petitioner attached to Form 1023 a copy of an agreement

between petitioner and Mr. Risdal. That agreement provided: 

CONTRACT AGGREEMENT, MYSTERYBOY INCORPORATION,

(MBI), HEREBY AGGREES TO PAY ITS DIRECTOR EDDIE C.

RISDAL THE EXACT AMOUNT IT PERSONALLY COST EC. RISDAL

TO PURCHASE LIBRARY BOOKS FOR MBIs’ LIBRARY AND RESEARCH AND STUDIES NEEDS AND EC. RISDAL AGREES TO

LOCATE AND PURCHASE SUCH BOOKS WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL

MONEY.POSTAGE OR OTHER SHIPPING COSTS WILL BE AMENDED

TO THE BOOKS EXPENSE COST AND MBI WILL REINBURSE ONLY

WHEN IT HAS THE FUNDINGS TO DO SO AND IF MBI NEVER

RECEIVES SUCH FUNDING, E.C.RISDAL AGGREES TO LET MBI’s

LIBRARY TO KEEP SUCH BOOKS. (PERPETUAL AGGREEMENT.) 

In other attachments to Form 1023, petitioner stated that

“MYSTERYBOY Incorporation is inspired from GOD; MOTHER-NATURE AND 
- 11 -

GOVERNMENT in its humanitarian works” and that “MYSTERYBOY

Incorporation is pro-family values”. 

By letter to petitioner dated August 1, 2006, respondent

acknowledged receipt of petitioner’s Form 1023. 

By letter to petitioner dated February 16, 2007 (respondent’s February 16, 2007 letter), respondent stated in pertinent

part:

Before we can determine whether your organization is

exempt from Federal income tax, we must have enough

information to show that you have met all legal requirements. You did not include the information needed

to make that determination on your Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

To help us determine whether your organization is

exempt from Federal income tax, please send us the

requested information by the above date [3/9/07]. We

can then complete our review of your application. 

In an attachment to respondent’s February 16, 2007 letter,

respondent stated in pertinent part:

Additional Information Requested:

The purpose of this request is to present the facts

concerning your organization’s application, and set

forth the position of the Internal Revenue Service with

respect to the application. In addition, this request

allows your organization the opportunity to present

additional facts concerning your organization, and to

submit court cases and revenue rulings in support of

your organization’s position.

* * * * * * *
- 12 -

Application of Law:

The organization Mysteryboy Incorporation was formed

for the purpose of “working for law change.” In addition, the organization’s primary activity is to “research the pros and cons of decriminalizing sex between

adults and minors and ... decriminalizing child pornography.” The research is to be “converted into educational materials to be distributed to the general

public and legislatures for consideration for use in

law reforming/repeals/decriminalization/or use in

making new law bills.”

The facts of this case show that Mysteryboy Incorporation was organized and operating primarily for influencing a change in the laws concerning sexual exploitation of children.

Conclusion:

An organization organized and operating to influence

legislation does not meet either the organizational or

operational test for exemption under section 501(c)(3). 

In addition, the reforming/repealing and decriminalizing laws meant to protect children from sexual child

abuse and sexual predators is contrary to public policy

and would encourage illegal activity. Therefore, your

organization would not be exempt under either IRC

501(c)(3) or (4).

If your organization is of the opinion that it qualifies for exemption from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Code, please submit a written

statement from a member of your organization’s governing body explaining your organization’s position. 

Please be sure to include revenue rulings and court

cases in support of your organization’s position. 

Also attached to respondent’s February 16, 2007 letter was a

copy of an opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of Iowa

affirming Mr. Risdal’s civil commitment as a sexually violent

predator under Iowa Code Ann. ch. 229A (West 2006). That opinion

stated in pertinent part:
- 13 -

Eddie C. Risdal was imprisoned for second and

third-degree sexual abuse involving adolescents. 

Shortly before he was slated to discharge these sentences, the State petitioned to have him adjudicated a

sexually violent predator subject to civil commitment. 

See Iowa Code chapter 229A (2003). A jury determined

that Risdal was a sexually violent predator.

On appeal, Risdal challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence supporting the jury’s finding, as well as

certain evidentiary rulings and a related jury instruction. We affirm.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence-Directed Verdict

A “sexually violent predator” is defined as,

a person who has been convicted of or charged with

a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a

mental abnormality which makes the person likely

to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually

violent offenses, if not confined in a secure

facility.

Iowa Code § 229A.2(11). “Mental abnormality” is defined as “a congenital or acquired condition affecting

the emotional or volitional capacity of a person and

predisposing that person to commit sexually violent

offenses to a degree which would constitute a menace to

the health and safety of others.” Id. at § 229A.2(5).

At the close of the State’s evidence, Risdal moved

for a directed verdict, contending that the State

failed to prove he suffered from a mental abnormality. 

The district court overruled Risdal’s motion. Risdal

takes issue with this ruling. He maintains there was

insufficient evidence to establish that he was attracted to adolescent boys “solely because of their

chronological ages” or that his attraction was “pathological, disordered, or abnormal.”

Our review of challenges to the sufficiency of the

evidence is for errors of law, with fact findings

binding us if supported by substantial evidence. See

In re Detention of Swanson, 668 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa

2003).
- 14 -

The State proffered an expert witness, Dr. Dennis

Doren, who opined that Risdal had two mental abnormalities - (1) paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS), in

the form of hebephilia, and (2) personality disorder

NOS, with antisocial and narcissistic features, both of

which caused Risdal to more likely than not commit

sexually violent offenses.

Dr. Doren stated the first abnormality,

paraphilia, is a disorder of sexual arousal other than

by a consenting adult and hebephilia is a form of

paraphilia that involves sexual attraction to adolescents. Dr. Doren diagnosed Risdal with this disorder

based on his convictions and charges for sexual abuse

with adolescents, Risdal’s admission that he had sexual

contact with at least one adolescent, and Risdal’s

formation of a corporation known as Mystery Boy, Inc.

with a stated purpose of advocating for reform and

repeal of sex abuse laws.

Dr. Doren opined that hebephilia affected Risdal’s

volitional process by limiting the degree to which he

saw the potential consequences of his actions and by

impairing his ability to maintain relationships. He

testified that Risdal’s condition affected him so

significantly that he had serious difficulty in controlling his sexual behavior with adolescents.

Dr. Doren’s second diagnosis of personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic features was based

on Risdal’s history of arrests, disciplinary reports in

prison, fighting in prison, reckless driving, and a

belief that his sexual behavior was not a problem. 

Narcissistic features were reflected in Risdal’s belief

that people viewed him as “Mother Teresa,” his belief

that ninety percent of Story County residents liked

him, which made the county sheriff jealous, his belief

that people turned to him to fight corruption, and

Risdal’s description of himself as a professional

sexologist with years of sexual study.

The State also elicited testimony directly from

Risdal on the “mental abnormality” element. Risdal

admitted to sexual contact with a fifteen-year-old boy. 

He also admitted to what he characterized as consensual

activities with other boys as young as eleven years

old. He conceded some of these activities may have

involved incidental contact of a sexual nature. Risdal
- 15 -

additionally provided a detailed exposition of his

views on sex abuse and sex abuse laws. The following

exchange is illustrative:

Q....Can I glean from what you said that you

don’t believe that sex between adults and children

is harmful to children? A. Not in all cases it

ain’t, and that’s been factually verified by psychologists, psychiatrists and several professionals.

Q. In fact, you believe that sex between

children and adults could actually be helpful to

them. Don’t you? A. Yes, I do. Statistics show

that. It’s hard for me to seat up - to sum up

backing my Mystery Boy Incorporation and what it’s

discovered in its - I classify myself as a unique

expert in scientific, natural scientific study in

human sexuality, and I follow the famous sex therapist Simon Foyd [sic], and there’s another one

there.

Q. But, sir, let’s focus on that. You actually have done writings. I have got one of them

here, where you think that if sex between adults

and children were allowed that there would be -

that you wouldn’t have serial killers. Isn’t that

right? A. Yes. That’s right.

* * *

Q. So, you are saying that we wouldn’t have

serial murderers or parents who murder their children if we just allowed sex between kids and

adults. Is that right? A. Yes.

* * *

Q. (reading from one of Risdal’s writings)

The point I think you are making, and also that

this thing is making, is where it says here at the

bottom, starting right here, “Thousands of kids

would die yearly from either murder, suicide,

physical abuse, neglect, hunger if not for the

concerned and caring pedophile.” Is that your

belief system, sir? A. It is my belief, and

that’s factually backed up by histography [sic] of

government records.
- 16 -

This evidence was sufficient to establish that Risdal

had a mental abnormality. State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d

426, 430 (Iowa 2005). 

We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the

testimony of defense expert, Dr. Luis Rosell. Dr.

Rosell concurred in Dr. Doren’s opinion that Risdal

suffered from a mental abnormality, but disagreed with

the diagnosis of hebephilia. He also stated he did not

believe that Risdal’s abnormality predisposed him “to

commit future acts of sexual violence if he’s not

confined in a secure facility.” On this score, Dr.

Rosell’s opinion was less than unequivocal. He opined,

“I think the issue of his mental disorder needs to be

cleared up before we can really make an accurate determination.” The jury was free to afford less weight to

this opinion than to Dr. Doren’s testimony. State v.

Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1975) (“The trier of

fact is not obliged to accept opinion evidence, even

from experts, as conclusive. It may be accepted in

whole, in part, or not at all.”). [Fn. refs. omitted.] 

In a letter to respondent dated February 23, 2007 (petitioner’s February 23, 2007 letter), petitioner responded to

respondent’s February 16, 2007 letter. That letter stated in

pertinent part:

IN CONSPIRACY IOWA”S ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS FALSELY

INPRISONED ME AS A FIRST TIME FELONE FOR OVER 22-YEARS

ONGOING TODAY FOR PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN MOTIVES AND

THE TWO COUNTS OF SEX ABUSE CHARGES WERE FABRICATED FOR

THE PURPOSE OF OF DECEITING THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE

APPEALS COURTS THAT IOWA”S ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS IN

CONSPIRACY WITH A FORMER DECEASED SMALL COUNTY SHERIFF

& FORMER COUNTY PROSECUTOR WHO”S FORMER ASSISTANT IS

NOW THAT COUNTIES HEAD PROSECUTOR. * * * ANOTHER FACT

IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROSECUTOR FORMARALLY CITED THE

MBI DURING MY PRIOR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING COURT TRIAL

AND ALSO DURING MY LATER CIVIL JURY TRIAL SO THE FACT

IS I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GIVE MY AND DEFENSE FOR MBI

DURING THOSE TRIALS.ANOTHER FACT IS MBI WAS NOT FOUNDED

FOR MYOWN PERSONAL USE & GAIN THE FACT MY SEXUAL CONVICTION CASE IS ONE CASE OUT OF MILLIONS OF OTHER

ADULTS AND JUVENILES SEXUAL ABUSE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

CASES THAT HAVe OCCURED OVER THE LAST 30ty SOME YEARS
- 17 -

ACCROSS THE UNITED STATES, PLUES MBI EDUCATIONAL GOAL

IS AIMED AT EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE WORLD AND IT IS

NOT AIMED SOLELY AT THOSE WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN ACCUSED

OF CONVICTED AT SEXUAL CRIMES. * * * THE ORIGINAL

ARREST AND PROSECUTION CRIMINAL TRANSCRIPTS FACTUALL

STATES I WAS PROSECUTED ON TWO COUNTS OF SEX

ABUSE,COUNT ONE HAD ONE MALE TEENAGED MALE JUVENILE

DELINQUENT VICTOM WITH ONE ALLEGED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

ACT,COUNT TWO HAD ONE MALE JUVENILE DELINQUENT VICTOM

AND ONE ALLEGED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR ACT, AT TRIAL NO ONE

COULD GIVE AN ALIBI DEFENSE OF THE TIME, DATE, & EXACT

LOCATION THE TWO SEX ACTS OCCURED, NO ONE COULD

FACTUALL THE KIND OF SEX ACTS THAT WERE ALLEGED,UNDER

OATH THE VICTOMS TESTIFIED TO THE JURY THEY WERE NOT

VICTOMS, NO HARM WAS DONE THEM, AND DAYS PRIOR

E.C.RISDAL”S ARREST THE SHERIFF HAD INDIVIDUAlly SECLUDED EACH OF THE TO BECOME VICTOMS IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAR, PUT A GUN TO THEIR HEADS,COERCORED THEM TO SAY

THEY HAD SEX WITH E.C.RISDAL,(THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND

EVEN THE PRESIDING JUDICIAL TOLD THE JURY THEY AGGREED

WITH THE TWO VICTOMS TESTIMONY UP TO THE EXTENT OF THE

SHERIFF COERC-ORING BOTH VICTOMS PRIR TRIAL. * * * ALSO

TO CLEARIFY I DO NOT HAVE ANY PAST FELONY RECORD OTHER

THEN THOSE TWO FELONIES THAT RESULTED FROM A SAME

INCIDENT OF WHICH I WAS CONVICTED OF IN 1986 BY A

TINTED JURY.also fact BOTH THOSE FORMER TWO CRIMINAL

CHARGES I WAS LATER CONVICTED ON WERE CONSOLAGATED AT

THE ONE JURY TRIAL AND AT THE LATER SENTENCING TRIAL I

WAS SENTENCED CONSECTUTIVELY.

* * * * * * *

ALSO FACT,AS A NATURAL SCIENTIST WHO HAS DISCOVERED

SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER EVIDENSE FACTS THAT PROVE BEYOND

DOUBT THAT THERE IS A MANDATORY NEED TO PRESERVE HUMAN

SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATIONS OF HUMAN KIND REGARDLESS OF AGE

INDIFFERENCES,AND THAT SOME GOVERNMENTAL MADE SEXUAL

LAWS THAT PROHIBIT SUCH NATURAL ACTS OF CONSENSUAL

SEXUAL BEHAVIORS ARE ON A DESTRUCTIVE COURSE THAT IS

FASTLY DESTROYING SOCIETIES BEST INTERESTS AT LARGE AND

SUCH AS BEARING FRUIT OF HATE AND VIOLENSE PUTTING

HUMAN BEING AGAINST ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. SHOULD MBI

REPRESS THIS INPORTANT INFORMATION FROM HIS FELLOW

HUMAN BEINGS OR IS MBI EITHER BY SELF-CONSCIENSE OR BY

THE LAWS MBI IF ORGANIZED UNDER BE MANDATED TO GIVE

SUCH EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT

LARGE? I DON”T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT MY CONSCIENCE WILL

NOT ALLOW ME TO BE SILENCED JUST BECAUSE WE ARE LIVING
- 18 -

IN A TIME IN GENERATION WHEN ITS POLITICAL POPULAR TO

NOT ROCK THE SEXUAL PROHIBITATION BOAT * * *.

IN REFERENCE TO THE 11=PAGED COURT OF IOWAS APPEALS ATTACHED * * * [to respondent’s February 16, 2007

letter], I CAN SEE NO REASON TO GIVE MUCH CREDIBILITY

TO IT NOR TO GIVE MUCH FEEDBACK, THE FACT I DISCONTINUED MY ATTORNEY CLIANT RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT CORRUPTED

PUBLIC DEFENDER AT THE DATE OF MY CIVIL CONVICTION JURY

TRIAL, THEREFORE I HAD NO PARTICIPATION IN THAT ATTACHED CIVIL APPEAL NOR DID I AGGREE TO THE GROUNDS

THAT PUBLIC DEFENDER RAISED FOR HE REPRESSED THE

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF THAT HE KNEW I WANTED FILED BECAUSE

MY GROUNDS HAD THEY BEEN RAISED ON THAT FIRST APPEAL

WOULD OF GOT MY CONVICTION JUDGEMENT VACATED. * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * MBI FACTUALLY IS A EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND

ITS IN THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN AND

ADULTS, MBI”S EDUCATIONAL ADVOCACY IS DIRECTED TO

SOCIETY AT LARGE,THERE IS NO DIRECT INFLUENCE TO LEGISLATION, THE FACT MBI IS MANDATED BY LAW TO MAKE ITS

FINANCIAL LOG BOOKS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, MBI IS

LICENSED TO BE AN EDUCATIONAL ADVOCAY, THERE IS NO WAY

HUMANALLY POSIBLE TO STOP A LEGISLATURE FROM READING

MBI”S EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IF SHE OR HE DECIDES TO

TAKE IT ON THEMSELFS TO READ OR VIEW IT, INFACT IT

WOULD VIOLATE A LEGISLATURES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

GARNTES IF MBI ATTEMPTED TO PROHIBIT A LEGISLATURE FROM

READING OR VIEWING MBI”S EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS, THAT

WOULD BE LIKE SAYING LEGISLATURES ARE PROHIBITED FROM

READING THE DAILY NEWSPAPERS, OR FROM SEEKING-OUT

SCIENTIFIC FACTS FROM SCIENTISTS & EXPERTS THAT SHOULD

BE USED IN THE CONSIDERATION OF MAKING UNRESEARCHED

BILLS INTO LAWS. AS DIRECTOR, IT HAS NEVER BEEN IN MY

PLANNING TO RECEIVE A WAGE,OR USE MBI”S EARNINGS TO THE

BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR INDIVIDUAL, MBI

HAS NEVER WILL NEVER BE IN THE PROPAGANDA BUSINESS, ANY

EDUCATIONAL STATEMENTS FROM MBI CAN BE DEFENDED WITH

EITHER SCIENTIFIC FACTS OR FROM SECONDARY FACTS FROM

GOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC FILES OR OTHER EXPERTS FILES,ETC.

* * * * * * *

* * * MBI IS AN EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION,MBI”S EDUCATIONAL STATEMENTS FRUIT FROM PAST & PRESENT SCIENTIFIC

STUDY & RESEARCH MBI EITHER DOES ITSELF OF IN ANOTHER
- 19 -

PERCENTAGE SUCH COMES FROM SECONDARY SCIENTIFIC STUDY &

RESEARCH EXECUTED FROM OTHER PROFESSIONABLES. THEREFORE MBI IS AN EDUCATIONAL & SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION

THAT DOES SATISFY THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ORGANIZATION

UNDER THIS LAW CITED ABOVE ON THIS PAGE AT HAND.

* * * * * * *

* * * MBI WAS ORGANIZED AND IS OPERATING PRIMARILY NOT

FOR INFLUENCING A CHANGE IN THE LAWS CONCERNING SEXUAL

EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN,MBI WAS AND IS ORGANIZED TO

EXECUTE NATURAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY & RESEARCH ON THE PROS

AND CONS OF HUMAN SEXUAL BEHAVIORS AND TO CONVERT THE

CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS INTO EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND

ADVOCACY AND TO MAKE SUCH AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL

PUBLIC AT LARGE WORLDWIDE.

* * * * * * *

MBI DOES NOT PROMOOT SEXUAL BEHAVIORS NOR DOES IT

PROMOOT OR ENGAGE IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTS. MBI HAS ALWAYS

PROMOOTED ABSTINENCE,BUT NOW IT MAY DISCONTINUE THAT

PROGRAM BECAUSE IT TO CAN BE SAID TO INFLUENCE A CHANGE

IN THE LAWS. AND SO WHEre WILL THE IRS CENSORING STOP,

IF THE IRS EQUALLY ENFORCED ITS LAW ON INFLUENCING A

CHANGE IN LAW ON THE UNDISADVANTAGE AND THE ADVANTAGED

ORGANIZATIONS EQUALLY THERE WOULD BE NO ORGANIZATIONS

THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR IRS EXEMPTIONS. 

An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) facsimile coversheet dated

March 7, 2007, and addressed to Mr. Risdal stated in pertinent

part:

Thank you for your response [petitioner’s February 23,

2007 letter] to our letter dated February 16, 2007. 

Your position on the tax law will be included in the

proposed denial letter to be prepared in reference to

your Form 1023 Application. I attempted to call and

explain your appeal rights. However, the contact phone

number was picking up a fax signal on your end. Therefore, this fax is being sent to explain that a proposed

denial of exemption will be prepared and you will have

the opportunity to address the facts, law and application of tax law in response to the letter. You also

have the right to appeal the proposed denial and meet 
- 20 -

4The reference in respondent’s August 3, 2007 letter to “A”

was to petitioner. 

with an appeals officer. Further information will be

sent to you in regards to the appeal process. * * * 

In a letter to petitioner dated August 3, 2007 (respondent’s

August 3, 2007 letter), respondent notified petitioner that,

based on the information provided, respondent had concluded that

petitioner did not qualify for exemption under section 501(a) as

an organization described in section 501(c)(3). Respondent’s

August 3, 2007 letter informed petitioner that it had the right

to file a protest if it believed that the determination in that

letter was incorrect and that any such protest had to be submitted within 30 days from the date of respondent’s August 3, 2007

letter. 

In support of its determination that petitioner does not

qualify for exemption under section 501(a) as an organization

described in section 501(c)(3), respondent stated in pertinent

part in respondent’s August 3, 2007 letter:

IRC § 501(c)(3) of the Code exempts from federal income

tax corporations organized and operated exclusively for

charitable, educational, and other purposes, including

the prevention of cruelty to children. A

[4] was not

formed for any charitable or educational purpose but

was formed to sexually exploit children by promoting

the repeal of child pornography and exploitation laws. 

A was formed for the purpose of “working for law

change.” In addition, the organization’s primary

activity is to “research the pros and cons of decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and decriminalizing child pornography.” The research is to be “con-
- 21 -

5The reference in respondent’s August 3, 2007 letter to “D”

was to Mr. Risdal.

verted into educational materials to be distributed to

the general public and legislatures for consideration

for use in law reforming/repeals/ decriminalization/or

use in making new law bills.”

The application Form 1023 articulates the organization’s primary activity and purpose is to decriminalize

or change laws that prohibit the sexual exploitation of

a minor. In addition, the policy “working for law

change concerning the rights of sexual active consenting kids and adults” is stated in the purpose clause of

the organizing documents. Therefore, the purpose for

which the organization is formed is contrary to public

policy to protect the sexual exploitation of children.

The purpose clause in A’s organizing document does not

meet the organizational test. IRC § 501(c)(3) states

that exempt purposes include the prevention of cruelty

to children and that no part of its net earnings inures

to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual

and no substantial part of the activities of which is

carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to

influence legislation.

The Bylaws provide D

[5] a lifetime position as Executive

Director to ensure the furtherance of the organization’s purpose and goals. Court documents report the

founder’s views are in favor of sex between children

and adults and that the formation of D’s corporation A

is to work towards reform and repeal of sex abuse laws. 

The court documents and decision to affirm the classification that D is a violent sexual predator supports

the fact that D formed A to change laws that adversely

affect the founder of A. Therefore, the formation of a

corporation to work towards reforming laws to legalize

sexual abuse of minors is for the private benefit of

the founder and not in furtherance of a charitable

purpose.

US Code Title 18 § 2251 prohibits the sexual exploitation of a minor. The purpose and activities of the

organization involve the purposeful sexual exploitations of minors.
- 22 -

6The reference in respondent’s August 3, 2007 letter to “B”

was to the State of Iowa.

Like the organization in Revenue Ruling 75-384 that did

not qualify for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) exemption, this

organization encourages individuals to violate the law.

* * * * * * *

The applicant’s position that A is educational and not

organized and operating for influencing a change in the

laws does not agree with the stated purposes for which

the organization was formed.

The purpose clause in the Articles of Incorporation

says that the corporation was organized to “work for

law change to protect the rights of sexual active

consenting kids and adults and to amend child sexual

photography law.”

The application states that the activities include the

study and research into the pros and cons of decriminalizing what is defined as child pornography. To

decriminalize child pornography the organization’s

activities would require working for law change as

stated in A’s organizing documents.

The Founder is the sole officer and the Executive

Director. Provisions in the bylaws say that the Executive Director is responsible in carrying out the corporation’s goals and the Executive Director position is

for the life time of that individual.

The B

[6] Court of Appeals records referred to in the

additional information requests show that the founder

formed A with a stated purpose of advocating for reform

and repeal of sex abuse laws. In the documented statements the founder stated that statistics discovered by

A shows that sex between children and adults is beneficial to society. The court affirmed D’s classification

as a sexually violent predator. The public court

records provide further evidence that D’s purpose for

forming A is to work for law changes that support D’s

criminal defense. The Founder’s position that the B

Attorney General and the Department of Corrections are 
- 23 -

in conspiracy to destroy A are only accusations and are

not found to be factual statements in the courts.

* * * * * * *

The organization’s primary activity and purpose is to

decriminalize or change laws that prohibit the sexual

exploitation of minors. The Founder, sole officer and

Executive Director of the organization, D, has been

affirmed by the U.S. Court system as a violent sexual

predator.

IRC § 501(c)(3) of the Code exempts from federal income

tax corporations organized and operated exclusively for

charitable, educational, and other purposes, including

the prevention of cruelty to children. A was not

formed for any charitable or educational purpose but

was formed to sexually exploit children by promoting

the repeal of child pornography and exploitation laws. 

US Code Title 18 § 2251 prohibits the sexual exploitation of a minor. The purpose and activities of the

organization involve the purposeful sexual exploitations of minors.

Accordingly, A does not qualify for exemption under

Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. 

Petitioner submitted a protest (petitioner’s protest) to

respondent’s August 3, 2007 letter, which the IRS received on

August 16, 2007. In petitioner’s protest, petitioner stated in

pertinent part:

Mysteryboy Incorporation whereas Mysteryboy Incorporation [MBI], is a scientific organization who’s aim is

to promoot & preserve sexual liberties while promooting

friendship, peace & love worldwide.

* * * the IRS & Government are not qualified

scientific experts in the study & research of human

sexual behaviors & the suspected relationship that

forced abstinence & policed sexual behaviors fruit

hatered & violence of which is harming the traditional

families at a large percentage.
- 24 -

MBIs program is not a personal program that only

caters to Eddie C. Risdal for its “FACT” MBIs program

caters to every human beings best interest in the

world, and MBI carrys out its educational scientific

programs in a lawful manner whereas no one is harmed,

and in its long goal program it will benefit every

person.

* * * * * * *

“FACT”: Regardless of one’s age all human beings

are amanalistic sexual creatures and no expert can

ethically advocate otherwise.

A majority of citizens have oppinions on whats

considered moralistic & what is legal by law [government law; God’s law.] But in majority those citizens

oppinions have no scientific merit & in most cases

those mystic oppineons cause great harm & undue sufferings to the general public at large when it involves

the pros & cons of human sexual behaviors. In some

cases the general public at large need to be rescued

from their own ignorance, and this is MBI’s goal. * * *

While MBI cited more than one program to IRS, MBIs

number one program is educational advocacy based from

MBIs & others scientific studies & researches. So if

IRS Code mandates only one program, MBI will simply

annul its other programs, the fact MBIs secondary

programs were not party in its original Iowa certificate applying. So now IRS can document MBI as an

Educational scientific advocacy organization. 

In a letter to petitioner dated August 27, 2007, respondent

acknowledged receipt of petitioner’s protest and informed petitioner that respondent’s Appeals Office responsible for petitioner’s protest would contact petitioner to arrange a mutually

agreeable time and place for a conference regarding that matter. 

By letter to petitioner dated October 15, 2007, respondent’s

Appeals Office in Baltimore, Maryland (Baltimore Appeals Office),

indicated that it had received petitioner’s protest. In a letter
- 25 -

to petitioner dated November 15, 2007 (Baltimore Appeals Office

November 15, 2007 letter), the Baltimore Appeals Office informed

petitioner that it had unsuccessfully attempted to contact

petitioner at the telephone number for Mr. Risdal that had been

provided to respondent. That letter further informed petitioner

that the conference that it had requested in petitioner’s protest

was scheduled for 10 a.m. on November 28, 2007. The Baltimore

Appeals Office November 15, 2007 letter further stated in pertinent part:

Please let me know within 10 days from the date of this

letter whether this is convenient. If it is not, I

will be glad to arrange another time.

Please be advised that if you do not call me for the

conference as scheduled above or contact me prior to

the scheduled conference to schedule another conference

date, I will close your case based on the information

contained in the administrative case file. This letter

will also be made part of the administrative case file.

Our meeting will be informal and you may present facts,

arguments, and legal authority to support your position. If you plan to present or discuss new material,

please send me copies at least five days before our

meeting. * * * 

On March 21, 2008, respondent sent a final adverse determination to petitioner. That determination letter stated in

pertinent part:

This is a final adverse determination as to your

exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal

Revenue Code. It is determined that you do not qualify

as exempt from Federal income tax under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, effective

December 1, 2003.
- 26 -

Our adverse determination was made for the following reason(s):

Based on the facts and information submitted,

you are not operated exclusively for exempt purposes as is required under I.R.C. section

501(c)(3).

Based on the facts and information submitted,

your purposes are contrary to a fundamental public

policy.

* * * * * * *

If you decide to contest this determination under

the declaratory judgment provisions of code section

7428, a petition to the United States Tax Court, the

United States Court of Claims, or the district court of

the United States for the District of Columbia must be

filed before the 91st (ninety-first) day after the date

this determination was mailed to you. * * * 

Discussion

Before determining whether petitioner is exempt from tax as

an organization described in section 501(c)(3), we shall set

forth the legal principles that control that determination.

Section 501(a) exempts from tax organizations described in,

inter alia, section 501(c)(3). As pertinent here, organizations

described in section 501(c)(3) include 

Corporations * * * organized and operated exclusively

for religious, charitable, scientific, * * * literary,

or educational purposes, * * * or for the prevention of

cruelty to children * * * 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)) * * *.
- 27 -

An organization is organized exclusively for one or more

purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) only if its articles of

organization (articles) (1) limit the purpose of such organization to one or more purposes specified in that section and (2) do

not expressly empower the organization to engage, otherwise than

as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities that in

themselves are not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(b)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs. 

An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more

purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) if its articles expressly

empower it to carry on, otherwise than as an insubstantial part

of its activities, activities that are not in furtherance of one

or more of those purposes, even though the organization is, by

the terms of its articles, created for a purpose that is no

broader than the purposes specified in section 501(c)(3). Sec.

1.501(c)(3)-1(b)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs. An organization will

not meet the organizational test as a result of statements or

other evidence that the members thereof intend to operate only in

furtherance of one or more of the purposes specified in section

501(c)(3). Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(b)(1)(iv), Income Tax Regs. 

An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more

of the purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) if its articles

expressly empower it to devote more than an insubstantial part of

its activities in attempting to influence legislation by propa-
- 28 -

ganda or otherwise or to have objectives and to engage in activities that characterize it as an action organization as defined in

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

1(b)(3)(i), (iii), Income Tax Regs. 

An organization will be treated as operated exclusively for

one or more purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) only if it

engages primarily in activities that accomplish one or more of

those purposes. An organization will not be regarded as operated

exclusively for one or more purposes specified in section

501(c)(3) if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is

not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes. Sec.

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

An organization is not operated exclusively for one or more

purposes specified in section 501(c)(3) if it is an action

organization as defined, inter alia, in section 1.501(c)(3)-

1(c)(3)(ii) or (iv), Income Tax Regs. 

Under section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., an

organization is an action organization if a substantial part of

its activities is attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise. For this purpose, an organization is to be

regarded as attempting to influence legislation if the organization (1) contacts, or urges the public to contact, members of a

legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or

opposing legislation or (2) advocates the adoption or rejection
- 29 -

7An organization for which the expenditure test election of

sec. 501(h) is in effect for a taxable year will not be

considered an action organization under sec. 1.501(c)(3)-

1(c)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., if it is not denied exemption from

taxation under sec. 501(a) by reason of sec. 501(h). In Form

1023, petitioner indicated that it did not intend to make an

election under sec. 501(h).

of legislation. Id. An organization will not fail to meet the

operational test merely because it advocates, as an insubstantial

part of its activities, the adoption or rejection of legislation.7 Id. 

Under section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iv), Income Tax Regs., an

organization is an action organization if it has the following

two characteristics: (1) Its main or primary objective or

objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary

objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of

proposed legislation; and (2) it advocates, or campaigns for, the

attainment of such main or primary objective or objectives as

distinguished from engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or

research and making the results thereof available to the public. 

In determining whether an organization has those characteristics,

all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the

articles and all the activities of the organization, are to be

considered. Id. 

As pertinent here, an organization generally may be exempt

from tax as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) if it

is organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the
- 30 -

following purposes: Religious, charitable, scientific, literary,

educational, or prevention of cruelty to children. Sec.

1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs. An organization is not

organized or operated exclusively for one or more of the foregoing purposes unless it serves the public rather than a private

interest. In other words, in order to be organized and operated

exclusively for one or more purposes specified in section

501(c)(3), an organization must establish that it is not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests such as

designated individuals, the creator or the creator’s family, or

persons controlled, directly or indirectly, by such private

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

The term “charitable” in section 501(c)(3) is used in its

generally accepted legal sense. Therefore, that term is not to

be construed as limited by the separate enumeration in that

section of other purposes that may fall within the broad outlines

of “charity” as developed by judicial decisions. Sec.

1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2), Income Tax Regs. As pertinent here, the

term “charitable” in section 501(c)(3) includes: Advancement of

education or science; lessening of the burdens of Government; and

promotion of social welfare by organizations designed to accomplish any of the foregoing purposes or (1) to eliminate prejudice

and discrimination or (2) to defend human and civil rights

secured by law. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2), Income Tax Regs. If,
- 31 -

in carrying out its primary purpose, an organization advocates

social or civic changes or presents an opinion on controversial

issues with the intention of molding public opinion or creating

public sentiment to an acceptance of its views, that fact does

not preclude the organization from qualifying under section

501(c)(3) as long as it is not an action organization as defined

in section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3), Income Tax Regs. Sec.

1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2), Income Tax Regs.

The term “educational” in section 501(c)(3) relates to the

instruction or training of the individual for the purpose of

improving or developing the individual’s capabilities or the

instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual

and beneficial to the community. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i),

Income Tax Regs. An organization may be educational even though

it advocates a particular position or viewpoint so long as it

presents sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent

facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. Id. However, an organization is

not educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion. Id. 

An organization may meet the requirements of section

501(c)(3) only if it serves the public rather than a private

interest. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(5)(i), Income Tax Regs. Therefore, a scientific organization must be organized and operated in
- 32 -

the public interest in order to qualify as an organization

organized and operated exclusively for scientific purposes within

the meaning of section 501(c)(3). Id. Consequently, the term

“scientific” in section 501(c)(3) includes the carrying on of

scientific research in the public interest. Id. Research when

taken alone is a word with various meanings. It is not synonymous with “scientific”; and the nature of particular research

depends on the purpose which it serves. Id. In order for

research to be scientific within the meaning of section

501(c)(3), it must be carried on in furtherance of a scientific

purpose. Id. The determination of whether research is scientific does not depend on whether the research is classified as

“fundamental” or “basic” as contrasted with “applied” or “practical”. Id.

As pertinent here, scientific research will be regarded as

carried on in the public interest if (1) the results of the

research are made available to the public on a nondiscriminatory

basis or (2) the research is directed toward benefiting the

public. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(5)(iii)(a), (c), Income Tax Regs. 

Examples of scientific research that will be considered as

directed toward benefiting the public and that therefore will be

considered as carried on in the public interest are scientific

research carried on for the purpose of obtaining scientific

information, which is published in a treatise, thesis, trade
- 33 -

publication, or in any other form that is available to the

interested public. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(5)(iii)(c)(2), Income

Tax Regs.

As pertinent here, an organization will not be regarded as

organized and operated for the carrying on of scientific research

in the public interest if the organization will perform research

only for persons that are directly or indirectly its creators and

that are not described in section 501(c)(3). Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-

1(d)(5)(iv)(a), Income Tax Regs. 

The presence of a single substantial purpose that is not

described in section 501(c)(3) precludes exemption from tax under

section 501(a) regardless of the number or the importance of the

purposes that are present and that are described in section

501(c)(3). Better Bus. Bureau v. United States, 326 U.S. 279,

283 (1945); Copyright Clearance Ctr., Inc. v. Commissioner, 79

T.C. 793, 804 (1982).

The determination of (1) an organization’s purposes and

(2) the purposes the organization’s activities support are

questions of fact. See Pulpit Res. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 594

(1978). In reviewing the administrative record in proceedings

under section 7428(a), the Court may draw factual inferences from

the entire administrative record. Natl. Association of Am.

Churches v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 18, 20 (1984). In order to

determine whether the purposes of an organization are described
- 34 -

in section 501(c)(3), it is necessary to examine the actual

purposes that the organization’s activities are intended to

accomplish, and not only the nature of the activities of the

organization or its statement of purpose. See Living Faith, Inc.

v. Commissioner, 950 F.2d 365, 370 (7th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1990-484; Am. Campaign Acad. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1053,

1064 (1989). 

If an organization is engaged in a single activity directed

at achieving various purposes, some of which are described in

section 501(c)(3) and some of which are not described in that

section, the organization will fail the operational test where

the purpose not described in that section is more than insubstantial. Redlands Surgical Servs. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 47, 71

(1999), affd. 242 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). 

In determining whether an organization complies with the

operational test of section 501(c)(3), it is necessary to look

beyond the organization’s articles in order to ascertain “‘the

actual objects motivating the organization and the subsequent

conduct of the organization.’” Taxation With Representation v.

United States, 585 F.2d 1219, 1222 (4th Cir. 1978) (quoting

Samuel Friedland Found. v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 74, 85

(D.N.J. 1956)); see also Christian Manner Intl., Inc. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 661, 668 (1979).
- 35 -

8On the record before us, we also find that petitioner has

failed to carry its burden of establishing that it is not an

action organization as defined in sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii) or

(iv), Income Tax Regs.

We shall now determine whether petitioner was organized and

will be operated exclusively for one or more purposes specified

in section 501(c)(3). Petitioner’s articles state that it was

organized for the purpose of “working for law change to protect

the rights of sexual active consenting kids and adults”. Both

Federal and State laws exist for the purpose of prohibiting the

sexual exploitation and other abuse of children. See, e.g., 18

U.S.C.A. secs. 2251-2260A (West 2000 & Supp. 2009); Iowa Code

Ann. ch. 229A (West 2006 & Supp. 2009). The above-quoted purpose

of petitioner in its articles of incorporation would, as those

articles acknowledge, require activities by petitioner to effect

changes in existing Federal and State laws. On the record before

us, we find that petitioner does not satisfy the organizational

test of section 501(c)(3) and the regulations thereunder.8

Petitioner’s proposed activities include activities to

(1) legalize sex between adults and children, (2) change child

pornography laws, (3) observe sexual behavior between adults and

“underagers”, and (4) promote the artistic use of human nudity

“YOUNG AND OLD”. On the record before us, we find that petitioner proposes to operate in a manner that promotes activities

which are prohibited by Federal and State laws, violate public
- 36 -

9See supra note 8.

10Petitioner described its activities in Form 1023 to include “scientific” studies and research into the pros and cons of

decriminalizing natural consensual sex between adults and

“underagers” and decriminalizing what is defined as “child

pornography”. On the record before us, we find that petitioner

has failed to carry its burden of showing that the “scientific”

studies and research in which petitioner proposes to engage are

purposes specified in sec. 501(c)(3) and the regulations thereunder. 

policy as reflected in those laws, and tend to promote illegal

activities. On that record, we find that petitioner does not

satisfy the operational test of section 501(c)(3) and the regulations thereunder.9 

The activities in which petitioner proposes to engage seek

to decriminalize the type of behavior (1) for which Mr. Risdal,

petitioner’s founder, sole director, sole officer, and executive

director, was convicted and incarcerated and (2) which formed the

basis for his having been adjudicated a sexually violent predator

subject to civil commitment under Iowa Code Ann. ch. 229A (West

2006).10 On the record before us, we find that petitioner has

failed to show that those activities will not provide Mr. Risdal

with a platform from which he will seek to legitimize the illegal

behaviors in which he has engaged, for which he was convicted,

and which formed the basis on which he is civilly committed under

the laws of the State of Iowa. On that record, we find that

petitioner has failed to carry its burden of establishing that

its proposed activities will not further the private interests of
- 37 -

Mr. Risdal in violation of section 501(c)(3) and the regulations

thereunder.

Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry its burden of establishing that it was organized, and will be operated, exclusively

for one or more purposes specified in section 501(c)(3). On that

record, we further find that petitioner has failed to carry its

burden of establishing that respondent erred in determining that

petitioner is not exempt from tax under section 501(a) because it

is not an organization described in section 501(c)(3).

We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of

petitioner that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be

without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.

To reflect the foregoing, 

Decision will be entered

for respondent.