Stephen D. Ruddel - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989); United States v. American Bar            
          Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 117-118 (1986); Osborne v. Commissioner,           
          supra.                                                                      
               In the instant case, petitioner was charged with trafficking           
          in cocaine.  Under applicable State law, this offense carried a             
          mandatory 5-year prison term, and at least $100,000 in fines.               
          See Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 893.135(b)2 (West 1985).  In exchange              
          for a lighter sentence of probation, petitioner agreed to:                  
          (1) Plead nolo contendre, (2) agreed to cooperate with the                  
          police, and (3) remit $80,000 to the Police Department.  Under              
          these circumstances, petitioner's $80,000 payment, which was made           
          under the compulsion of his plea agreement, can hardly qualify as           
          a charitable deduction under section 170.  Instead of proceeding            
          merely from petitioner's generous impulse, his $80,000                      
          "contribution" was nothing more than part of the consideration              
          given by him to avoid incarceration.  See South End Italian                 
          Indep. Club v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 168, 176 (1986); Perlmutter            
          v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 311 (1965); Lombardo v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1985-552; cf. Commissioner v. Duberstein, supra at               
          285.  The same is true with respect to petitioner's $90,900                 
          payment to the Police Department also claimed as a charitable               
          contribution.  This payment was not a contribution.  To the                 
          contrary, the $90,900 payment was simply the quid pro quo that              
          petitioner paid for the return of his property lawfully seized by           
          the Police Department.  We hold for respondent on this issue.               




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011