Did a private school's parent committee qualify as PTA-equivalent when it organized only one annual auction?

Plain-English summary

Mr. S--- described a school parent auction committee that the school board authorized to hold an annual auction. Membership was voluntary, and auction proceeds went to the school for general operations. The live annotation calls it a private religious school, but the supporting memorandum identifies the school only through redacted initials.

The Legal office added three express assumptions: the committee held only that one event each year, had no bylaws or statements of purpose, and did nothing year-round for the school. On those facts and assumptions, it concluded the committee was not an equivalent organization under section 6370.

The memorandum compared the committee with objectives and services printed from the California PTA bylaws. Those provisions addressed child and youth welfare, home life, protective laws, cooperation between home and school, educational advantages, programs for parents, teachers and the public, noncommercial and nonpartisan operation, school work, and education-policy participation. Exact identity was unnecessary, but the organization needed similar purposes, concern for all students, parent and teacher participation, and ongoing functions benefiting the school and its students. School authorization alone was not enough, and the one-event committee had not supplied information showing the required breadth and depth.

Source, identity, and live-annotation limits

The source contains unresolved face-of-document conflicts. Its first page is a memorandum to O. A. McCarty of the Compliance Planning and Evaluation Unit from Mary C. Armstrong in Legal and prints August 1, 1978. Yet it says it responds to Mr. S---'s October 29, 1984 letter, both later pages are addressed to Robert Nunes and dated December 4, 1984, and the close contains VBO:dh rather than a signature. It copies Gary J. Jugum. The PDF metadata names Vickie Owen, but the document does not explain these different names or dates. The repeated December 4, 1984 continuation date controls this page's issue date; the conflict remains disclosed.

The PDF does not include Mr. S---'s letter or the cited PTA bylaws as separate source copies. It identifies no school beyond initials and supplies no school classification, governing record, committee membership list, bylaws, purpose statement, auction authorization, event materials, property, donor, bidder, sale, proceeds record, transfer to the school, return, tax calculation or payment, audit, assessment, claim, appeal, implementation, or later outcome. The one-event, informality, and no-year-round-work points were assumptions added by the Legal office, not documented findings.

The extracted official text contains apparent published errors including an unmatched quotation mark before equivalent organization, facts, as has been given, within this school, mentall, and towards; those words remain verbatim below.

The live annotation preserves a board-authorized voluntary parent committee, annual auction, general-operations proceeds, section 6370 question, added assumptions, PTA-equivalence standard, first three PTA objectives, date, and one-event conclusion. It alone calls the school private and religious. It omits the source's August 1, 1978 conflict, October 29 request, multiple names and VBO initials, the last two Article 2 objectives, Article 2 § 2, Article 3 provisions, all-students, parent-and-teacher and ongoing-function standards, cited documents absent from the PDF, missing records, source errors, and absent implementation and outcome.

What this means for you

School groups, auction committees, and tax professionals

Formal school authorization and parent involvement did not establish equivalence by themselves. Preserve formation and governing documents, school authorization, bylaws and purpose statements, membership and teacher participation, year-round programs and services, student populations served, auction materials, donated and sold property, bids and receipts, use and transfer of proceeds, returns, tax calculations, and payments. Clearly separate documented facts from assumptions when asking for advice.

Common questions

Was school-board authorization sufficient?

No.

What assumptions mattered?

That the committee was informal, held only the annual auction, and did not work year-round for the school.

Could different evidence change the analysis?

Potentially. The opinion emphasized the absence of information showing PTA-like purposes, objectives, and ongoing services.

Did the supporting memorandum itself identify a private religious school?

No. That description appears in the live annotation; the memorandum uses redacted school initials.

Is the issue date internally consistent?

No. The first page says August 1, 1978, while the request and both continuation pages point to 1984.

Who authored the memorandum?

The source does not resolve that. Its header names Mary C. Armstrong, the continuation pages address Robert Nunes, the close has VBO initials, and the PDF metadata names Vickie Owen.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6370
• California PTA Bylaws, Article 2, §§ 1–2, and Article 3(a) and (d) — quoted in part; a separate bylaws copy is not included
• Mr. S---'s October 29, 1984 letter — summarized but not included
• School, committee, authorization, membership, purpose, year-round-service, auction, sale, proceeds, reporting, tax, and later-proceeding records — implicated but not documented

Verbatim support

From the official supporting memorandum:

We assume that the MCS parent auction committee puts on just this one event each year. We also assume that the organization is not a very formal organization, that is, they do not have bylaws and statements of purpose. And we assume that the organization is not one that does things year round for the benefit of the school.

In our view it may not be necessary that a particular organization have identical objectives and identical services as set forth in the PTA bylaws, it should, however, be similar in objectives and purpose.

It should be concerned with the welfare of all students and include parents and teachers and perform ongoing functions for the benefit of the school and its students.

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/390-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/390-0915.pdf

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

Memorandum

To:

O. A. McCarty
Compliance Planning and
Evaluation Unit

From:

Mary C. Armstrong
Legal

Subject:

School Organizations

390.0915

August 1, 1978

Mr. S---’s letter of October 29, 1984, was referred to me for an opinion. The letter set forth the following facts: 1.

M--- C--- S--- has a parent auction committee which is authorized by the Board to host an annual auction for the benefit of the school.

2.

Membership in the auction committee is voluntary.

3.

Proceeds from the auction are given to M--- C--- S--- for its general operation.

Mr. S--- asks whether or not the M--- C--- S--- parent auction committee can be considered an “equivalent organization” pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 6370. We assume that the MCS parent auction committee puts on just this one event each year. We also assume that the organization is not a very formal organization, that is, they do not have bylaws and statements of purpose. And we assume that the organization is not one that does things year round for the benefit of the school. The facts, as has been given to us by the school, along with the assumptions which have been added by our office would lead us to the opinion that the MCS parent auction committee would not be considered an ‘equivalent organization” pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 6370. The pertinent part of 6370 states: “(a). This section applies to: (1) nonprofit parent-teacher organizations chartered by the California Congress of PTA, Inc., and equivalent organizations

Mr. Robert Nunes

-2-

December 4, 1984
390.0915

performing the same type of service for public or private schools and authorized to operate within this school by the governing authority of the school.” In order to determine whether or not the MCS parent auction committee would be considered an “equivalent organization” it is helpful to compare the objectives and services of that organization with the objectives and services offered by the PTA. The California PTA’s bylaws, Article 2, Section 1, list the objectives of the PTA as follows: “a.

To promote the welfare of children and youth in home, school, church and community.

b.

To raise the standards of home life.

c.

To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth.

d.

To bring into closer relationship the home and school, that parents and teachers may cooperate intelligently in the education of children and youth.

e.

To develop between educators and the general public such united efforts as will secure for all children and youth the highest advantages in physical, mentall, social, and spiritual education.”

Of course, such organization must also be officially recognized and authorized by the school as is the MCS parent auction committee. Article 2, Section 2, goes on to state: “The objects of the national PTA and the California State PTA are promoted through an education program directed toward parents, teachers, and the general public; are developed through conferences, committees, projects and programs; and are governed and qualified by the basic policies as set forth in Article 3.” The relevant portions of Article 3 are: “a.

The organization shall be noncommercial, nonsectarian, and nonpartisan.

d.

The organization shall work with the schools to provide quality education for all children and youth and shall seek to participate in the decisionmaking process establishing school policy, recognizing that the legal responsibility to make decisions has been delegated by the people to boards of education.”

In our view it may not be necessary that a particular organization have identical objectives and identical services as set forth in the PTA bylaws, it should, however, be similar in

Mr. Robert Nunes

-3-

December 4, 1984
390.0915

objectives and purpose. It should be concerned with the welfare of all students and include parents and teachers and perform ongoing functions for the benefit of the school and its students. It is our opinion that without information showing that there are similar purposes and objectives by the MCS parent auction committee to those purposes and objectives of the PTA such an organization which is oriented towards a one-time event each year would not be considered an “equivalent organization” as per Revenue and Taxation Code section 6370. VBO:dh

cc:

Mr. Gary J. Jugum.