Arbor Towers Associates, Ltd. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          record, we conclude that Arbor acquired Wolverine Tower under the           
          leaseback contract and owned it until it was sold to U of M.7               
               We now turn to whether the sale was a bargain sale resulting           
          in a charitable contribution.  This will turn on whether Arbor              
          sold Wolverine Tower to U of M for less than its fair market                
          value.  We hold it did not.  A sale of property to a section                
          170(c) organization accompanied by a donative intent on the part            
          of the vendor gives rise to a deductible charitable contribution            
          if the sale price is less than the fair market value of the                 
          property sold.  See United States v. American Bar Endowment, 477            
          U.S. 105 (1986); Stark v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 243 (1986);                 
          Waller v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 665 (1963).8  The regulations               
          under section 170 provide:  "If a charitable contribution is made           
          in property other than money, the amount of the contribution is             
          the fair market value of the property at the time of the                    
          contribution".  Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.  The                  
          regulations define "fair market value" as "the price at which the           
          property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing           
          seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and               



               7To embrace respondent's theory we would have to find U of M           
          paid the $9 million solely to buy out the interests of Arbor and            
          Wolverine in the land lease.  This makes no sense and is not                
          supported by the record.                                                    
               8Respondent does not raise the issue of whether donative               
          intent was lacking on these facts.                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011