Part IV. Items — Internal Revenue Bulletin 1999-37

are similarly situated to the issuer but who are not beneficiaries of tax-exempt financing.

Recently, an issue arose about whether investment-type property includes the prepayment of a contract for property or services after the date that the contract is entered into. In City of Columbus v. Com- missioner, 112 F.3d 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court held that a prepayment for property cannot occur after the property is acquired. The court’s holding suggests that an issuer could avoid investment-type property by entering into a contract for property or services and, at a later date, prepaying that contract. This result is inconsistent with the intent of section 148. The legislative history indicates that Congress intended that the arbitrage rules apply broadly. For example, the Conference Report to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 provides that investment property includes the acquisition of any property held for investment (other than another tax-exempt bond). H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II747, 1986–3 C.B. (Vol.4) 747. This document proposes modifications to the regulations to establish that prepayments that give rise to investment-type property can occur after the contract for property or services is entered into and to make other non-substantive, clarifying changes. It is intended that these regulations address only the potential issue created by the City of Columbus opinion as noted above. Comments are requested on whether the affect of the changes proposed in this document is broader than intended.

In addition to comments on the proposed regulations, comments are requested on whether additional guidance is needed to clarify other aspects of the investment-type property definition. For example, comments are requested on whether clarification is needed on which prepayments of an obligation will be treated as a prepayment for property or services that gives rise to investment-type property, and whether a contract under which property or services are to be provided over time and the payments for those property or services are to be made

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Hearing

Arbitrage and Related Restrictions Applicable to Tax-exempt Bonds Issued by State and Local Governments, Investment-Type Property

REG–113526–98

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations on the arbitrage and related restrictions applicable to taxexempt bonds issued by State and local governments. The proposed amendments affect issuers of tax-exempt bonds and provide guidance on the definition of investment-type property to help issuers comply with the arbitrage and related restrictions.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 23, 1999. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for January 12, 2000, at 10 a.m. must be received by December 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–113526–98), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–113526–98), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet by selecting the “Tax Regs” option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the IRS site at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/tax_regs/ regslist.html. The public hearing is in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Barbara Jane League, (202) 6223980; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or requests to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code provides rules addressing the use of proceeds of tax-exempt State and local bonds to acquire higher-yielding investments. On June 18, 1993, final regulations (T.D. 8476, 1993–2 C.B. 13) relating to the arbitrage restrictions and related rules under sections 103, 148, 149, and 150 were published in the Federal Regis- ter (58 F.R. 33510). Corrections to these regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 23, 1993 (58 F.R. 44451), May 11, 1994 (59 F.R. 24350), and July 9, 1999 (64 F.R. 37037). On May 9, 1997, additional final regulations (T.D. 8718, 1997–1 C.B. 47) relating to the arbitrage restrictions and related rules under sections 103, 148, 149, and 150 were published in the Federal Register (62 F.R. 25502). This document proposes to modify §1.148–1(e) to clarify which prepayments are investment-type property under section 148(b)(2)(D).

Explanation of Provisions

The current regulations, at §1.148– 1(e)(2), provide that prepayments for property or services give rise to investment-type property if a principal purpose for prepaying is to obtain an investment return from the time that the payment is made until the time that payment otherwise would be made. A prepayment does not give rise to investment-type property if (1) the prepayment is made for a substantial business purpose other than investment return and the issuer has no commercially reasonable alternative to the prepayment, or (2) prepayments on substantially the same terms are made by a substantial percentage of persons who

1999–37 I.R.B. 417 September 13, 1999

over time gives rise to investment-type property when the payment schedule does not match the schedule for the provision of the property or services.

Finally, Treasury and the IRS have become aware of certain transactions involving prepayments for the purchase of a commodity. In these transactions, an issuer generally enters into a long-term contract with a supplier (for example, a natural gas supply company) to supply over a number of years a fixed amount of the commodity to the issuer at a fixed price (the “supply contract”). In return, the issuer makes a single lump-sum prepayment for the commodity to the supplier. The prepayment is financed through the issuance of bonds. The amount of the prepayment is determined in a manner that permits the issuer to obtain an investment return from the prepayment. The issuer also enters into other agreements, including one or more swap agreements, that result in the issuer converting substantially all of the issuer’s cost for the commodity under the supply contract into a variable cost that approximates the then current price of the commodity when the issuer takes delivery.

Based on the information received, and viewing the transaction as a whole, it appears that a principal purpose of the prepayment for the supply contract was to earn an investment return. If so, the supply contract is investment-type property unless the requirement of §1.148– 1(e)(2)(i) or (ii) are met. Treasury and the IRS are concerned that the supply contract may be investment-type property and request comments on these transactions.

The regulations, when finalized, will apply to bonds issued after a date of applicability that will be set forth in the final regulations. Treasury and the IRS have not yet determined such date of applicability other than to have made the determination that the date of applicability will not be before August 25, 1999. Treasury and the IRS request comments as to the date of applicability of the final regulations. No inference is intended as to the treatment of bonds issued prior to the date of applicability of the final regulations.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a signifi

cant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies, if written) that are submitted timely to the IRS. In particular, the IRS and Department of Treasury specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 12, 2000, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing.

Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written comments by December 23, 1999, and submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by December 15, 1999. A period

of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Rebecca L. Harrigal and Barbara Jane League, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

- - - -

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Par. 2. Section 1.148–1(e) is amended as follows:

Paragraph (e)(1) is revised.
Paragraphs (e)(2) introductory text, (e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)(2)(i) introductory text, (e)(2)(i)(A), and (e)(2)(i)(B), respectively.
Paragraph (e)(2) the heading is revised.
Newly designated paragraph (e)(2)(i) introductory text is revised.
New paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is added. The revisions and addition read as follows:

§1.148–1 Definitions and elections.

(e) Investment-type property —(1) In general. Investment- type property includes any property, other than property described in section 148(b)(2)(A), (B),(C) or (E), that is held principally as a passive vehicle for the production of income. For this purpose, production of income includes any benefit based on the time value of money.

(2) Prepayments. (i) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), a prepayment for property or services, includ

September 13, 1999 418 1999–37 I.R.B.

ing a prepayment of a contract for property or services that is made after the date that the contract is entered into, also gives rise to investment-type property if a principal purpose for prepaying is to receive an investment return from the time the prepayment is made until the time payment otherwise would be made. A prepayment does not give rise to investment type property if—

(ii) Example. The following example illustrates an application of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section:

Example. In 1996, City A entered into a ten-year contract with Company Y. Under the contract, Company Y is to provide services to City A and in return City A will make fixed annual payments to Company Y. In 1998, Company Y and City A agree that City A will prepay its obligation under the contract. To finance the prepayment, City A will issue bonds. The amount of the prepayment is determined in a manner that permits City A to obtain an investment return from the prepayment. A principal purpose for City A agreeing to make the prepayment is to obtain an investment return from the time of the prepayment until the time payment otherwise would be made. The prepayment is not made for a substantial business purpose other than to obtain the investment return and City A had a commercially reasonably alternative to the prepayment. In addition, prepayments on substantially the same terms are not made by a substantial percentage of persons who are similarly situated to City A but who are not beneficiaries of tax-exempt financing. When the prepayment is made, City A will have acquired investment-type property. It does not matter that the prepayment occurred after the date that the contract was entered into.

Robert E. Wenzel, Deputy Commissioner

of Internal Revenue.

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on August 24, 1999, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for August 25, 1999, 64 F.R. 46320)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Hearing

Arbitrage Restrictions Applicable to Tax-exempt Bonds Issued by State and Local Governments

REG–105565–99

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations on the arbitrage restrictions applicable to tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments. The proposed amendments affect issuers of tax-exempt bonds and provide a safe harbor for qualified administrative costs for brokers’ commissions and similar fees incurred in connection with the acquisition of a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow.

DATES: Written comments must be received by November 26, 1999. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 14, 1999, at 10 a.m. must be received by Tuesday, November 23, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–105565–99), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–105565–99), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet by selecting the “Tax Regs” option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the IRS site at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/tax_regs/ regslist.html. The public hearing is in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Rose M. Weber, (202) 622-3980; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or requests to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Michael Slaughter, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code provides rules addressing the use of proceeds of tax-exempt State and local

bonds to acquire higher-yielding investments. On May 9, 1997, final regulations (T.D. 8718, 1997–1 C.B. 47) relating to the arbitrage restrictions and related rules under sections 103, 148, 149, and 150 were published in the Federal Register (62 F.R. 25502). The final regulations (T.D. 8718) were amended on December 30, 1998 (63 F.R. 71748 [T.D. 8801, 1999–4 I.R.B. 5]). This document proposes to modify §1.148–5(e)(2) to provide a safe harbor for determining whether brokers’ commissions and similar fees incurred in connection with the acquisition of guaranteed investment contracts or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow are treated as qualified administrative costs.

Explanation of Provisions

Section 1.148–5(e)(2)(iii) and (iv) of the regulations provides rules for determining whether a broker’s commission or similar fee is treated as a qualified administrative cost. Section 1.148–5(e)(2)(iii) provides that, for a guaranteed investment contract, a broker’s commission or similar fee paid on behalf of either an issuer or the provider is treated as an administrative cost and, generally, is a qualified administrative cost to the extent that the present value of the commission, as of the date the contract is allocated to the issue, does not exceed the lesser of a reasonable amount or the present value of annual payments equal to .05 percent of the weighted average amount reasonably expected to be invested each year of the term of the contract. Present value is computed using the taxable discount rate used by the parties to compute the commission, or if not readily ascertainable, the yield to the issuer on the investment contract or other reasonable taxable discount rate.

Section 1.148–5(e)(2)(iv) provides that, for investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow, a fee paid to a bidding agent is a qualified administrative cost only if the fee is comparable to a fee that would be charged for a reasonably comparable investment if acquired with a source of funds other than gross proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, and it is reasonable. The fee is deemed to meet both the comparability and reasonableness requirements if it does not exceed the lesser of $10,000 and .1 percent of the ini

1999–37 I.R.B. 419 September 13, 1999

tial principal amount of investments deposited in the yield restricted defeasance escrow.

Unlike §1.148–5(e)(2)(iv), §1.148– 5(e)(2)(iii) does not provide parameters under which the reasonableness test will be deemed to have been met. Practitioners have noted that they are uncertain about how to determine reasonableness and whether the .05% test may be used as a safe harbor without regard to whether the resulting amount is a reasonable fee.

Practitioners have also noted that the computation required by §1.148–5(e)(2)(iii) is too complex and results in different fees being paid for the same services provided.

Finally, having different rules for guaranteed investment contracts and investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow provides an unnecessary tax incentive to structure investments in a certain manner.

To eliminate these complexities and to provide a rule that is easily administered by issuers, the proposed regulations create a single rule for qualified administrative costs that applies to a broker’s commission or similar fee incurred in connection with a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow. The proposed regulations also set forth a safe harbor, which allows a broker’s commission or similar fee incurred in connection with the acquisition of a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow to be treated as a qualified administrative cost. To fairly compensate most brokers, the proposed safe harbor provides a higher safe harbor limit than is currently provided for in §1.148–5(e)(2)(iv).

The proposed safe harbor sets forth two requirements. Under the first requirement, the amount of the broker’s commission or similar fee incurred in connection with the acquisition of a guaranteed investment contract or other investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow and treated by the issuer as a qualified administrative cost cannot exceed the lesser of $25,000 and .2 percent of the computational base. For guaranteed investment contracts, the computational base is the aggregate amount reasonably expected to be deposited over the

term of the contract. For investments, other than guaranteed investment contracts, deposited in a yield restricted defeasance escrow, the computational base is the initial amount invested in those investments. For example, for a guaranteed investment contract purchased for a debt service fund, the aggregate amount reasonably expected to be deposited includes all periodic deposits reasonably expected to be made pursuant to the terms of the contract. Under the second requirement, for any issue of bonds, the issuer cannot treat as qualified administrative costs more than $75,000 in brokers’ commissions and similar fees with respect to all guaranteed investment contracts and investments for yield restricted defeasance escrows purchased with gross proceeds of the issue.

The proposed regulations eliminate the special rule in §1.148–5(e)(2)(iii) for issues that meet section 148(f)(4)(D)(i). These bond issues will be permitted to use the safe harbor.

These regulations are proposed to apply to bonds sold on or after the date 90 days after the issuance of the final regulations.

Special Analysis

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

mitted timely to the IRS. In particular, the IRS and Department of Treasury specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, 1999, beginning at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT” section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written comments by November 26, 1999, and submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by November 23, 1999. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Rose M. Weber and Rebecca L. Harrigal, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

- - - -

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

September 13, 1999 420 1999–37 I.R.B.

PART 1–INCOME TAXES

sumption arising from the filing of notices under section 508(b) of the Code. This listing does not indicate that the organizations have lost their status as organizations described in section 501(c)(3), eligible to receive deductible contributions.

Former Public Charities. The following organizations (which have been treated as organizations that are not private foundations described in section 509(a) of the Code) are now classified as private foundations: 6th Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, Frankfort, KY 501C3 Inc., New York, NY AAWARE, Gaithersburg, MD A C E-Out Inc., New York, NY A Dying Childs Last Wish, San Antonio,

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Par. 2. In §1.148–5, paragraph (e) is amended as follows:

Paragraph (e)(2)(iii) is revised.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv) is removed. The revision reads as follows:

§1.148–5 Yield and valuation of investments.

(e) * * * (2) * * * (iii) Special rule for guaranteed invest- ment contracts and investments pur- chased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow (A) In general. An amount paid for a broker’s commission or similar fee with respect to a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow is a qualified administrative cost if the fee is reasonable within the meaning of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.

(B) Safe harbor. ( 1 ) A broker’s commission or similar fee with respect to the acquisition of a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow is reasonable within the meaning of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section if—

( i ) The amount of the fee that the issuer treats as a qualified administrative cost does not exceed the lesser of $25,000 and .2% of the computational base; and

( ii ) For any issue, the issuer does not treat as qualified administrative costs more than $75,000 in brokers’ commissions or similar fees with respect to all guaranteed investment contracts and investments for yield restricted defeasance escrows purchased with gross proceeds of the issue.

( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, computational base shall mean—

( i ) For a guaranteed investment contract, the amount the issuer reasonably expects as of the issue date to be deposited in the guaranteed investment contract over the term of the contract; and

( ii ) For investments (other than guaranteed investment contracts) to be deposited

in a yield restricted defeasance escrow, the amount of gross proceeds initially invested in those investments.

(C) Example. The following example illustrates an application of the safe harbor in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section:

Example. The issuer of a multipurpose issue uses brokers to purchase the following investments with gross proceeds of the issue: a guaranteed investment contract for amounts to be deposited in a debt service fund (debt service GIC), a guaranteed investment contract for amounts to be deposited in a construction fund (construction GIC), Treasury securities to be deposited in a yield restricted defeasance escrow (Treasury investments) and a guaranteed investment contract that will be used to earn a return on what would otherwise be idle cash balances from maturing investments in the yield restricted defeasance escrow (the float GIC). The issuer uses $8,040,000 of the proceeds to purchase the Treasury investments and deposits $14,000,000 into the construction GIC. Over the term of the construction GIC, the issuer reasonably expects that no further deposits will be made. Over the term of the float GIC, the issuer reasonably expects that aggregate deposits of $600,000 will be made to the float GIC. Over the term of the debt service GIC, the issuer reasonably expects that it will make aggregate deposits of $22,000,000, plus interest on the bond issue. The brokers’ fees do not exceed $16,080 for the Treasury investments, $25,000 for the construction GIC, $1,200 for the float GIC, and $25,000 for the debt service GIC. Assuming the issuer claims no further brokerage or similar fees, the issuer can claim all $67,280 in brokerage fees for these investments as qualified administrative costs because the fees do not exceed the limitations described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

Robert E. Wenzel, Deputy Commissioner

of Internal Revenue.

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on August 26, 1999, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for August 27, 1999, 64 F.R. 46876)

Foundations Status of Certain Organizations

Announcement 99–91

The following organizations have failed to establish or have been unable to maintain their status as public charities or as operating foundations. Accordingly, grantors and contributors may not, after this date, rely on previous rulings or designations in the Cumulative List of Organizations (Publication 78), or on the pre

TX ABRAXAS Inc., Milford, DE Academic Athletic Arts Achievements

Association, Springfield, MA Academy Charter PTO, Castle Rock, CO Accessible Resources, Minneapolis, MN Achieve the Dream Foundation Inc.,

Randallstown, MD Acton Chamber Orchestra, Acton, MA Ad Council of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo, NY Adele Hardison Hands Heart and Mind

Inc., New York, NY African Initiative for Community

Development Inc., Malden, MA Agape Care Facilities Incorporated,

Jacksonville, FL Agape Community Services Inc., Benton,

KY Agape Group Home Inc., Washington,

NC AIDS Council in Oswego County Inc.,

Fulton, NY AIDS Futures Initiative Inc., Roosevelt

Island, NY AIDS Infoshare Russia Inc., Berkeley,

CA AIDS of the Treasure Coast Corporation,

Fort Pierce, FL Albanian-American Cultural Foundation,

New York, NY Albuquerque Police Department Crime

Prevention Unit, Albuquerque, NM Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Rotary

Charitable Fund, Algonquin, IL Algonquin Project Playground,

Algonquin, IL Alle-Kiski Arts Consortium, New

Kensington, PA Alliance Community Outreach Program

Inc., Warren, OH

1999–37 I.R.B. 421 September 13, 1999

Boy Scouts of America Troop 106 &

Inc., Canton, GA Bridges of North Carolina Inc.,

Alliance for Curriculum Reform,

Arlington, VA Alverda Reed Elementary Parent Teacher

Association of Massachusetts Parent Aide

Programs Inc., Taunton, MA Atlanta CSI Foundation Inc., Marietta, GA Auburn Education Foundation Inc.,

Auburn, MA Augusta Childrens Chorale Inc., Augusta,

Pack 106 of Ironton Ohio, Ironton, OH Boys & Girls Club of Bloomfield Inc.,

Bloomfield, NM Boys & Girls Club of Cherokee County

Organization, Georgetown, OH Amateur Gymnastics Association of

Florida Inc., Boca Raton, FL Amazon Community Housing, Eugene,

OR Ambridge-Baden-Economy Soccer

Fayetteville, NC Brigham City Main Street Program,

Brigham City, UT Bronx Health & Human Services

Development Corporation Inc., Bronx, NY Bronx Hispanic Foundation Inc., Bronx,

NY Brookfield Rotary Club Foundation Inc.,

Association, Baden, PA American Angels for Romanian Orphans,

GA Bahini Foundation Inc., New York, NY Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan

Repertory Opera Company Inc., Laurel, MD Barney Oldfield Transportation Museum

Inc., Wauseon, OH Bay Area Accordion Club, San Francisco,

Manchester, NH American Association for Home-Based

Early Interventionists Nonprofit, Logan, UT American Breast Cancer Foundation,

Brookfield, CT Brown County Veterans Assistance Inc.

Tucson, AZ American Friends of the Hanover Band

CA BCI Homes Inc., Moncks Corner, SC Beaufort County 2000 Inc., Hilton Head

Island, SC Beechwood Center of New Jersey Inc.,

Program, Oneida, WI Bucks County Civil War Round Table,

Inc., Brown Summit, NC American Indian AIDS Institute Inc.,

San Francisco, CA American Museum of Modern Military

Langhorne, PA Bel Canto Singers Inc., Hilliard, OH Beloved Community Center of

Doylestown, PA Buf Health and Human Services

Corporation Inc., Plainfield, NJ Burke County Firefighters Association

Inc., Morganton, NC Butler Sports Boosters, Oak Brook, IL Butts County Humane Society Inc.,

Vehicles Inc., Hartford, CT Americana Community Center Inc.,

Louisville, KY Amputee Education Foundation,

Homestead, FL Anderson Care Facility Inc., Memphis,

TN Angoon Resource Coalition, Angoon, AK Anthony J. Hyde Parent Teacher

Greensboro Inc., Greensboro, NC Benefactors of Schwab Rehabilitation

Hospital and Care Network, Naperville, IL Bethlehem House Inc., Conway, AR Between Friends Inc., N. Conway, NH BHP Community Housing Inc.,

Panama City, FL Big Waters Federation, Des Plaines, IL Bink Glisson Historical Preservation

Trust Inc., West Palm Beach, FL Birmingham Public Schools Adopt-A

Flovilla, GA Byzantine Orthodox Ecclesiastical

Community, Trenton, NJ C. Waldo Scott Center for HOPE Inc.,

Newport News, VA California 49ers Educational Association

Association, Washington, DC Antique Tractor Museum Inc., Dallas,

Baltimore, MD Big Bend Rural Health Network Inc.,

TX Arc-en-Ciel Dhaiti, Chicago, IL Arizona Adult Literacy and Technology

Inc., Fountain Valley, CA Calvary Community Development

Corporation, Philadelphia, PA Cambridge-Isanti Arena Corporation,

Cambridge, MN Camptown Youth Group, Franklin, VA Carmel Health Network, Mobile, AL Carroll County Civic League,

Resource Center Inc., Phoenix, AZ Arizona People for Animal Rights,

Gilbert, AZ Arkansas Ballet Theatre Inc., Rogers, AR Arlington Host Lions Charities Inc.,

Arlington, VA Arvada Eagles Soccer Club, Arvada, CO Ashland Area Foundation, Ashland, NE Asian Pacific Foundation for Culture and

School Board of Directors, Birmingham, AL Black Affairs Center Inc., Silver Spring,

Overland Park, KS Bnai Brith Elmwood House Inc.,

MD Black Economic Cluster Fund Inc.,

Landover, MD Blackjack Community Center Inc.,

Huntingdon, TN Casa de New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM Casa Grande 2000 Inc., Casa Grande, AZ Casas del Sol Resident Management

Corporation, Calexico, CA Catawba Community Mental Health

Education, Denver, CO Asociacion del Instituto Dominicano de

Starkville, MS Blue Valley Northwest Booster Club Inc.,

Medford, NJ Boiling Springs Parent Teacher Student

Enfermedades Respiratorias Inc., New York, NY Association of Massachusetts Parents

Aide Programs, Inc., Taunton, MA Aspen-Institute Inc., Park City, UT Assessment Consultation and Training

Association, Spartanburg, SC Boost Our Southwick Schools,

Foundation Inc., Rock Hill, SC Cavani String Quartet, Woodmere, OH Celestine Project Inc., East Islip, NY Cemco Industrial Scholarship Fund,

Albuquerque, NM Center for Community Recovery

Innovations Inc., Boston, MA Center for Employment Dispute

Resolution Inc., Chicago, IL Center for Independent Living of Middle

Inc., Chicago, IL Association House Holding Corporation,

Southwick, MA Boosters for IGA Inc., Menlo Park, CA Boston Boys Choir Inc., Cambridge, MA Boston City Opera Company Inc.,

Melrose, MA Boston School for Young Children,

Tennessee, Nashville, TN

Chicago, IL Association of Ethiopian Community in

Watertown, MA

Fresno Inc., Fresno, CA

September 13, 1999 422 1999–37 I.R.B.

Center for Latin American Arts of New

Child Assault Prevention Project of Erie

County Inc., Sandusky, OH Childrens Programs Inc., Springfield, IL Childrens Services Network, Charlotte,

North American Sasquatch Foundation,

Phoenix, AZ Tampa Area Playground Project, Tampa,

FL The Downtown Sailing Center Inc.,

York Inc., New York, NY Central Arkansas Peace Corps

Association, Little Rock, AR Central Bronx Community Services &

NC First Ward Development Fund Inc.,

Relations for the Blind, Bronx, NY Central City Information Drug and

Baltimore, MD Triune Foundation Inc., New York, NY Tropical Forestry Initiative Inc., Lansing,

Alcohol Office Inc., Des Moines, IA Central Elementary School Parents

Teacher Organization of Winchester, Winchester, KY Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center,

Elizabeth, NJ Gateway C B Club, Jeffersonville, KY Gujarat Samanvay Parivar, Richmond,

Hamilton, MA Help Agency of the Forest Inc., Silver

VA Hamilton-Wenham Little League Inc., S.

NY Turning Point Youth Services Institute

Inc., New York, NY University Association of Central

Oregon, Inc., Bend, OR West Haven Interfaith Housing

Eldora, IA Central Midlands Development

Corporation, Columbia, SC Central Ozarks Human Development

Springs, FL Institute for Cooperation of Art and

Research Inc., Philadelphia, PA Laguna Fire Relief Coalition, Laguna

Foundation, Rolla, MO Central Valley Group Homes Inc.,

Fresno, CA Central Virginia Regional Library,

Beach, CA Local 144 Hospital & Health Facilities

Corporation, W. Haven, CT If an organization listed above submits information that warrants the renewal of its classification as a public charity or as a private operating foundation, the Internal Revenue Service will issue a ruling or determination letter with the revised classification as to foundation status. Grantors and contributors may thereafter rely upon such ruling or determination letter as provided in section 1.509(a)–7 of the Income Tax Regulations. It is not the practice of the Service to announce such revised classification of foundation status in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Farmville, VA Chamberlain School District Foundation,

Education Fund, New York, NY M A A Foundation Inc., Redondo Beach,

CA Macedonia High School JROTC Booster

Club Association, Moncks Corner, SC Needed Organization-Transformation of

Chamberlain, SD Charlotte-Mecklenburg Crime Stoppers

Inc., Charlotte, NC Chaucer Street Apartments Inc., Hot

Springs, AR Cherry Tree Association, Bronx, NY Chester Community Prevention

Development Inc., St. Louis, MO Nine Twenty-One Sixty-Six Inc., Tulsa,

Youth, Detroit, MI New Northside Multi-Family

Coalition, Chester, PA

1999–37 I.R.B. 423 September 13, 1999