Zagfly, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo. 2013-29 (2013)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Zagfly, Inc. (plaintiff) was incorporated in California as a nonprofit corporation. Zagfly’s stated purpose was to create internet businesses that would allow consumers to support charities with their everyday purchases. To accomplish this goal, Zagfly intended to allow consumers to designate a portion of the profits from each purchase. That portion would be set aside, and Zagfly would donate these funds to outside charities selected by its users. Zagfly’s first proposed commercial venture was to run an online flower shop that brokered flower deliveries for customers at market rates. Customers would be able to designate 1 to 2 percent of each purchase price (which represented 10 to 20 percent of Zagfly’s profits for each purchase) to be donated to the outside charities. Other than that, Zagfly’s flower business would run like an ordinary commercial online flower brokerage. Zagfly also intended to solicit donations to cover the administrative expenses of managing the charitable donations. Zagfly applied for federal tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3), contending it was organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) rejected the application. Zagfly filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking a determination that it qualified as tax exempt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

