of the organization under scrutiny and is examined merely to reveal the use to which the property is being put.”) (citations omitted). ■ Here, the Tax Court found that the Board was composed of “advocates in a segment of society that is profit-driven.” Under the Trust, half of the trustees are appointed by the unions and half by the employers; each can be discharged at the will of the group that appointed that trustee. The Fund contends that the board’s composition was not designed to benefit a for-profit group, but to balance the interests of two groups. Furthermore, the Fund notes that each trustee has an independent fiduciary duty to promote the educational purposes of the school. See Wolosoff v. CSI Liquidating Trust, 205 N.J.Super. 349, 359-60, 500 A.2d 1076 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>). However, the trustees are appointed by the
holding that trustees fiduciary duty exists independent of any clause in trust agreement holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that trustees did not breach their fiduciary duty by deciding to set independent contribution rates for each local union recognizing that fiduciary liability requires not onlya repose of trust but an assumption of a duty and breach of that duty holding that such a duty exists