-8-
the center of a lawsuit between petitioners (the purported donors)
and the State of Delaware (the purported donee), no donative intent
existed and a completed gift was neither made nor was it accepted
by the State.
OPINION
Initially, we must determine whether petitioners made a
charitable contribution of land to the State of Delaware within the
meaning of section 170(c)(1). Assuming we find such a
contribution, we must then determine the fair market value of the
land. See sec. 1.170A-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. Where respondent
has disallowed a charitable contribution deduction, the taxpayer
must show error in respondent's determination. Rule 142(a).
In determining the existence and timing of a charitable
contribution, we apply the same analysis as that in determining the
existence and timing of a gift. We have consistently held that
there are six essential elements of a bona fide inter vivos gift.
These six elements are:
(1) a donor competent to make the gift; (2) a
donee capable of taking the gift; (3) a clear
and unmistakable intention on the part of the
donor to absolutely and irrevocably divest
himself of the title, dominion, and control of
the subject matter of the gift, in praesenti;
(4) the irrevocable transfer of the present
legal title and of the dominion and control of
the entire gift to the donee, so that the
donor can exercise no further act of dominion
or control over it; (5) a delivery by the
donor to the donee of the subject of the gift
or of the most effectual means of commanding
the dominion of it; (6) acceptance of the gift
by the donee * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011