- 31 -
purchase option. We conclude that petitioners have abandoned the
position in their joint return and in the petition. See Rybak v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988). We shall address
petitioners’ argument at trial and on brief that they are enti-
tled to a charitable contribution deduction with respect to both
MHR Properties’ leasehold interest and MHR Properties’ purchase
option.
Section 170(a) generally allows a taxpayer a deduction for
any charitable contribution, as defined in section 170(c), made
during the taxable year. Section 170(c) defines the term “chari-
table contribution” to mean a contribution or gift to or for the
use of one or more specified organizations (qualified recipient).
The parties’ initial dispute under section 170 is whether the
cancellation of MHR Properties’ St. Clair property interests
constitutes a contribution or gift within the meaning of section
170(c).6 In resolving that dispute, we bear in mind that the
sine qua non of a charitable contribution under section 170 is a
transfer of money or property without adequate consideration.
See United States v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 118
(1986). In limiting a deduction under section 170(a) to a
“contribution or gift” to or for the use of a qualified recipi-
6The parties also have a disagreement over whether petition-
ers substantially complied with certain of the recordkeeping and
return requirements for charitable contribution deductions
prescribed by sec. 170(a) and sec. 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs.
We address that disagreement infra note 12.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011