- 5 -
split-interest trust upon its first amendment. Petitioner
contends that the Trust was a split-interest trust at the time of
the contribution, which, in turn, according to his argument,
means that the tax benefit of the Trust's charitable contribution
passed through to him.
We agree with respondent.2 Deductions are a matter of
legislative grace, INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79,
84 (1992), and petitioner must establish his entitlement to
deduct the charitable contributions at issue herein, Rule 142(a);
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
Although section 170 generally allows a taxpayer to deduct
charitable contributions, such an allowance is subject to certain
limitations. One of these limitations is that the taxpayer must
have made the contribution. Herring v. Commissioner, 66 T.C.
308, 312 (1976); see Manning v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-127; see also Wilson v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion
of this Court dated Feb. 21, 1952. Petitioner did not make the
2 At the outset, we note that petitioner argues that the
period of limitation under sec. 6501 has expired on the instant
years. We disagree. The notice of deficiency was issued on
July 17, 1995, which is within the 3-year period set forth in
sec. 6501(a). Although the charitable contribution from which
the carryover arose was outside of this 3-year period, sec. 6501
does not foreclose the Court from looking to a closed year to
redetermine petitioner's tax liability for the instant years.
See Barenholtz v. United States, 784 F.2d 375, 380-381 (Fed. Cir.
1986); see also Angell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-528,
affd. without published opinion 861 F.2d 723 (7th Cir. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011