Stephen D. Ruddel - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               The determinations reflected in respondent's notice of                 
          deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden is on petitioner            
          to disprove these determinations.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                    
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Blohm v. Commissioner,                 
          994 F.2d 1542, 1548-1549 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.                 
          1991-636.                                                                   
          1.  Charitable Contribution Deduction                                       
               Section 170(a) allows a deduction for charitable                       
          contributions, as defined in section 170(c).  The phrase                    
          "charitable contribution" is generally understood to be                     
          synonymous with the term "gift."  Elrod v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.            
          1046, 1075 (1986); Sutton v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 239, 242                 
          (1971).  “A gift is generally defined on a voluntary transfer of            
          property by the owner to another without consideration therefor.”           
          Osborne v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 575, 581 (1986).  The term                 
          “gift” does not include payments that proceed primarily from a              
          legal duty or moral obligation imposed on the donor, or from the            
          inducement of some anticipated benefit (beyond the incidental               
          enjoyment which flows from performing a generous act).                      
          Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 284-286 (1960);                   
          Burwell v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 580, 589-590 (1987); DeJong v.             
          Commissioner, 36 T.C. 896, 899 (1961), affd. 309 F.2d 373 (9th              
          Cir. 1962).  Furthermore, if the “contribution” is in fact an               
          exchange in the form of a substantial quid pro quo, it is not a             
          contribution to which section 170 applies.  Hernandez v.                    




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011